Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2437 (UTT)

GANESH CHANDRA KABDWAL AND OTHERS v. DEVKI DEVI

WPMS/478/2025 · 2025-02-17

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1075 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 478 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.D. Pande & Mr. Ravi Joshi, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Deepak Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioners moved an application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 for adding their names in the revenue records, in respect of an agricultural land. In their application, they had alleged that they have inherited the land from one Sri Dharmanand, their predecessor-in- interest. The said application filed by petitioners was allowed by the Tehsildar, Haldwani, vide order dated 22.02.2019. 4. Respondents challenged the said order in an Appeal filed under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, Haldwani, vide judgment dated 22.04.2022. Respondents thereafter challenged the order passed by Tehsildar as well as Assistant Collector in a revision, filed before Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the judgment dated 04.09.2024, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Petitioners have challenged the judgment rendered by Board of Revenue on the ground that finding of fact returned by the Tehsildar could not have been reversed in a revision; no reason has been recorded by the Board of 2025:UHC:1075 Revenue for reversing the finding returned by Tehsildar as well as Assistant Collector regarding the plea of inheritance, set up by the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Mr. Deepak Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners by moving application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act are misconceived, as disputed question of title cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. He submits that only remedy available to petitioners is to file a declaratory suit under Section 229B of UPZA&LR Act. He further submits that petitioners have not been able to demonstrate as to how the property of late Dharmanand has been devolved upon them, therefore, learned Board of Revenue is justified in reversing the finding returned by Tehsildar as well as Assistant Collector. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, as petitioners have asserted title over the land in question in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, which is not permissible. Section 34 of the said Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- “34. Report of succession or transfer of possession.- (1) Every person obtaining possession of any land by succession or transfer (other than a succession or transfer which has already been recorded under Section 33-A, shall report such succession or transfer to the Tahsildar of the Tahsil in which the land is situate. (2)*** (3)*** (4) If the person so succeeding, or otherwise obtaining possession, is a minor or otherwise 2025:UHC:1075 disqualified, the guardian or other person who has charge of his property shall make the report required by this section. (5) No Revenue Court shall entertain a suit or application by the person so succeeding or otherwise obtaining possession until such person has made the report required by this section.” 8. Upon perusal of the record it is revealed that there is a dispute as regards identity of the land regarding which petitioners have claimed title. 9. Respondents contend that the land, which belongs to late Dharmanand is a different piece of land and the land regarding which petitioners have asserted their rights belongs to Hari Dutt, Hari Krishan, Nand Kishore and Ghananand, all sons of late Keshav Dutt. 10. Having regard the facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, for declaration of their title. The declaratory suit filed by petitioners shall be decided on merits, untrammelled by the observations made by Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment, in view of the provision contained in Section 40-A of the Land Revenue Act. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 17.02.2025 Navin 2025:UHC:1075