Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14660 (UTT)

SUDESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPPIL/196/2025 · 2025-11-03

G Narendar, Subhash Upadhyay

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9694-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 196 OF 2025 3RD NOVEMBER, 2025 Sudesh Kumar …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State / respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Petshali and the learned Chief Standing Counsel 1 2025:UHC:9694-DB Mr. C.S. Rawat assisted by learned Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari. 2) The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs : “a) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct Re-survey in gram sabha village Khadakmaaf, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, according to Sec. 48 of Land Revenue Act. b) To issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the G.O. dated 11.02.2021. c) Issue an order, writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the inquiry against the erring official of survey department and officers. d) To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3) Perused Section 28 along with Section 48 of the Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is apparent that the decision on disputes as canvassed by the petitioner, 2 2025:UHC:9694-DB the remedy is by way of proceedings by the Record Officer under Section 51. 4) If the petitioner is otherwise aggrieved, he may seek remedy under the Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act, 1901. The petition, in our considered opinion, appears to be highly misconceived and stands rejected with liberty to seek a remedy as provided under law. 5) The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 3RD NOVEMBER, 2025 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aa f116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d57 57, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC5 1A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18 DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2025.11.20 11:09:01 +05'30'