2025:UHC:1066 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 2633 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Khalil Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Kirti Saran Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3. 4. Application for mutation of their names was filed by Yogis Kumar & Pradeep Kumar (respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein) and they contended that the Bhumidhar of the land in question had bequeathed the said land to them by means of a Will. The mutation application, filed by respondents was allowed by Tehsildar. Petitioner challenged the mutation order in an appeal, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 23.08.2003 by Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner filed a restoration application, which too was dismissed on 05.10.2005. Thereafter, petitioner challenged both these orders, passed by appellate court, in revision. The revision filed by petitioner was allowed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division vide judgment dated 31.03.2009; the order passed by Collector was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the appellate court to decide the matter afresh. 5. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 challenged the judgment rendered by Commissioner, Kumaon Division dated 31.03.2009 before Uttarakhand Board of Revenue by filing 2025:UHC:1066 Revision No. 14 of 2008-09. The said revision, filed by respondent nos. 2 & 3, was allowed by Uttarakhand Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 30.08.2014, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the appeal filed by petitioner, challenging the mutation order passed by Tehsildar, was dismissed for non-prosecution and petitioner’s application, seeking restoration of appeal, was also dismissed without any cogent reason, therefore, the revisional court (i.e. Commissioner) rightly interfered with the order passed by Collector, dismissing the appeal for default. The revisional court simply remanded the matter back to the appellate court i.e. Collector, therefore, Uttarakhand Board of Revenue was not justified in interfering with the remand order passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division on the revision filed by the petitioner. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2014 passed by Uttarakhand Board of Revenue in Revision No. 14 of 2008-09 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Collector, Udham Singh Nagar shall decide Appeal No. 52/174 of 2000-01, within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. State Counsel shall communicate this order to the Collector, Udham Singh Nagar on or before 21.02.2025. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 17.02.2025 Aswal 2025:UHC:1066