2025:UHC:6783 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2276/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.K.Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Anshul Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 4. Petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 05.07.2025 rendered by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in Revision No. 213 of 2024-25. By the said judgment, revision filed respondent no. 3, challenging the judgment rendered by Assistant Consolidation Officer on 25.03.2025, was allowed and the matter was remanded back to Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh. 5. Petitioners have challenged the said judgment only on the ground that while admitting the revision, delay was not condoned and application seeking delay was condoned at the time of deciding the appeal. 6. Mr. Anshul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, however, submits that the order challenged before the revisional court was passed on 25.03.2025 and revision was filed on 21.05.2025, therefore, delay was only about 21 days. He further submits that father of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and husband of petitioner no. 1, sold the land 2025:UHC:6783 in question to respondent no. 3 (Ali Ahmed Khan) by a registered sale deed in the year 1973, however, they are now trying to take benefit of the fact that name of purchaser (respondent no. 3) was not mutated in the revenue record and petitioner nos. 1 to 3 have gifted the land, already sold out by their predecessor, in favour of petitioner no. 4, who is the real sister of petitioner nos. 2 & 3. It is further contended that by the impugned judgment, Deputy Director Consolidation has simply remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh, therefore, any interference with the impugned judgment would not be warranted. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Since by the impugned judgment, the matter has simply been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the remand order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 01.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f98 02a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5 C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.01 02:57:33 -07'00' 2025:UHC:6783