HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3013 of 2025 30th October, 2025 Ayyub and others …………Petitioners Versus Akhtari Begum …………Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioners have put to challenge the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, in Revision No.133/2018-19, under Section 48(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Ayyub and others Vs. Akhtari Begum and another. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.08.2018, Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, passed an order whereby certain adverse findings were recorded against the petitioners in connection with a disputed sale deed dated 18.04.1964. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, in Revision No.133/2018-19, under Section 48(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Ayyub and others Vs. Akhtari Begum and another, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.04.2025 and the case was remanded back to IVth Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Roorkee, Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of learned Revisional Authority 1 is unsustainable in the eyes of law, primarily because it violates the settled principle regarding secondary evidence by illegally accepting uncertified copies without the foundational proof required by Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and by reversing the burden of proof (Sections 101-104) and compelling the petitioners to prove a negative fact. These errors are compounded by the Authority's misapplication of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC to a dispute concerning only individual parties, its failure to appreciate that no adverse presumption could be raised against the petitioner when the document (cheque) was admittedly lost/destroyed, and its findings being based on conjectures and surmises, rendering the entire order perverse, arbitrary, and in gross violation of natural justice. 4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, in Revision No.133/2018-19, under Section 48(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Ayyub and others Vs. Akhtari Begum and another. By the order impugned in the revision passed by learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Roorkee, Haridwar the respondent was only permitted to file certified copy of the sale deed dated 18.04.1964. 5. The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases where there is a manifest error of law or perversity in the order impugned. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, has considered the factual aspects of the matter in its entirety. 2 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.10.2025 SK 3