Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2329 (UTT)

RAVINDRA CHANDRA KARNATAK v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR SECOND CLASS TEHSILDAR

WPMS/472/2025 · 2025-02-18

Alok Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1117 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 18TH FEBRUARY, 2025 Writ Petition No. 472 of 2025 (M/S) Ravindra Chandra Karnatak ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Collector and Others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Suyash Pant, Nos. 1 & 2 Standing Counsel. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- “(I) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondents directing them to take a final decision on the objections filed by Petitioner on 21-01-2021 and 13-06-2022 to the Mutation Case No. 30/450 of 2020-21 Smt. Chanchala Arora Versus Smt. Pushpa Kabadwal and others pending in the court of Assistant Collector Second Class / Tehsildar Nainital. (II) Issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (III) Award the cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner.” 2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2025:UHC:1117 2 3. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, has contended that the petitioner is the owner of the property-in- question. The land was duly recorded in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner after mutation proceedings. The land of the petitioner was sold by respondent nos. 4 & 5 to respondent no.3 by way of registered sale deed dated 28.12.2020. A mutation case was filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 before the Court of Tehsildar, Nainital (No.30/450 of 2020-21). Objections have been filed by the petitioner in the said mutation proceedings. 4. Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate, on instructions, has sought three months’ time to decide the said mutation case. 5. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition (WPMS No. 472 of 2025) is disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Collector, the respondent no.1, to decide the said mutation case (Mutation Case No. No.30/450 of 2020-21) as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order. __________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 18.02.2025 Shiv/