HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3015 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. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, in Revision No.16/2018-19, under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Akhtari Begum Vs. Ayyub and Others. 2. The facts in brief are that the dispute arises out of a property bearing Gata Nos. 963A and 963B situated at Village Badheri, Rajputan, Pargana and Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioners, who are members of the same family, had instituted a case before the IVth Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, under Section 9(a)(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, contending that their father had never sold the aforesaid property to the respondent, and that the respondent’s name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records. On 03.11.2006, the petitioners moved an application before the Consolidation Officer seeking an order to maintain status quo and to restrain any sale or purchase of the disputed property, which was allowed on the same date. The 1 respondent subsequently filed objections against the order dated 03.11.2006, and upon consideration, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 09.07.2018, continued the status quo order, observing that maintaining the existing position would not adversely affect either party. During the pendency of proceedings, the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of the pending revision, and pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Revisional Authority heard the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation condoned the delay in filing the revision, allowed it, and set aside both orders dated 03.11.2006 and 09.07.2018, holding that they were not reasoned or speaking orders. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.04.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Revisional Authority has acted in a hyper- technical and mechanical manner in allowing the revision filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the Revisional Authority failed to consider the cause shown by the petitioners and ignored material facts, including the circumstances under which the petitioners had sought continuance of the status quo order. It is argued that both orders of the Consolidation Officer were passed after due consideration of the objections filed by the respondent and in the interest of preserving the disputed property till adjudication of title. 4. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority erred in law in condoning the delay in filing the revision petition without assigning any reasons or recording satisfaction that sufficient cause had been made out. According to the petitioners, the 2 impugned order is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay cannot be condoned as a matter of course, and that reasons must be recorded to demonstrate judicial application of mind. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority, has failed to comply with this settled requirement, thereby rendering the order illegal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the impugned order suffers from total non- application of mind, is perverse, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer without examining the merits of the case, and without considering the fact that maintaining status quo did not prejudice either party. The order, therefore, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revisional Authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and instead acted beyond its powers by interfering with interlocutory orders that were merely procedural in nature. The petitioners assert that they were prevented by bona fide circumstances beyond their control and that there was no deliberate inaction or negligence on their part. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the original orders dated 03.11.2006 and 09.07.2018 deserve to be restored. 7. 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 3 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 order of status quo dated 03.11.2006 which was passed after hearing both the parties was directed to be continued and case was adjourned for defendant evidence. But from bare perusal of the order dated 09.07.2018 it is reflected that the order is no speaking and no reasons have been assigned to pass such an order. The Revision court has rightly set aside the orders dated 03.11.2006 and 09.07.2018 and remanded the case back to the learned Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Roorkee, Haridwar. 8. 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. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.10.2025 SK 4