2025:UHC:9182 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS 748/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Datt Kandpal, Deputy AG, with Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder, for the State. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3 to 5. (2) Petitioner has challenged judgment dated 8.11.2023, passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division in Revision No. 111 of 2022-23. By the said judgment, order passed by Kanoongo, Ramnagar in proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act was set aside and name of respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 was directed to be mutated in the revenue record as bhumidhar in respect of the land in question, situate in Village Devipur, Muliya, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital. Petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by revisional court only on the ground that the order passed by Kanoongo was set aside on administrative complaint made by respondent no. 3. (3) Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 to 5, however, has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 762 of 2019. Para 18 of the said judgment is extracted below: “18. Both the order under appeal, and the order of the Commissioner impugned therein, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for his examination afresh in terms of the directions issued hereinabove, and in accordance with law. No costs.” 2025:UHC:9182 (4) By referring to the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment rendered by Division Bench, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to 5 submits that Commissioner exercised his revisional powers in compliance of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court, therefore it is incorrect to say that impugned judgment was rendered on an administrative complaint. (5) This Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division. Law is well settled that mutation of name in revenue record is done for fiscal purposes and mutation neither extinguishes nor creates title over the property. Judgment rendered by Divisional Commissioner, impugned in this writ petition, will not affect the merits of the case, if petitioner files declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in view of provision contained in Section 40-A of the said Act. (6) For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing a regular declaratory suit. If he files such suit before appropriate forum, then the same shall be decided on merits, uninfluenced by any observation made by learned Commissioner in the impugned judgment. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.10.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE 53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.10.16 10:55:30 +05'30' 2025:UHC:9182