2025:UHC:9956 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2808 of 2025 12 November, 2025 Daljit Singh --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. When the matter was taken up as fresh before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order allowing the restoration application was shown to have been passed on 13.06.2024, whereas the said application was actually heard on 13.08.2024. He, therefore, contended that it was not possible for the order to have been passed prior to the date of hearing and alleged that there might be some manipulation in the case records. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2025, directed that the original record of the mutation proceedings, i.e., Case No. 80 of 2023-24, Daljit Singh & Others vs. Balkar Singh, pending before the learned Tehsildar, Laksar, District Haridwar, along with the entire record of the restoration application, be produced before this Court. 3. Today, Mr. Pratap Singh Chauhan, Tehsildar, Laksar, District Haridwar, is present before this Court 2025:UHC:9956 2 along with the record of the aforesaid mutation case. 4. Upon perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the restoration application was heard on 13.08.2024, and on the same date, the order allowing it was passed. However, the order allowing the restoration application bears the date ‘13.06.2024’ instead of ‘13.08.2024’. This appears to be a clerical mistake. Therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be without merit and is accordingly rejected. Let the original record be returned to learned counsel for the State. 5. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking an order for expeditious disposal of Revision No. 5 of 2024-25, Daljit Singh vs. Jaswant Singh & others, under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Court. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid revision has been pending before the learned revisional court for the past one year, and no effective progress has been made. It is further submitted that in the said revision, only arguments are to be advanced by both parties. 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has contended that all the respondents have not yet been served; therefore, at this stage, issuing such a direction would be a futile exercise. 8. Upon perusal of the order sheet of the civil revision, it appears that the matter has been adjourned from time to time for one reason or another. The right to speedy justice is a fundamental right of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that appropriate 2025:UHC:9956 3 directions can be issued for the expeditious hearing of the aforesaid revision. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Revisional Court, i.e., the Collector, Haridwar, to decide Revision No. 05/2024-25, Daljit Singh vs. Jaswant Singh & others, under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date on which all the respondents are duly served, in accordance with law. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.11.2025 AK