2026:UHC:953 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 347 of 2026 16 February, 2026 Kanwarpal --Petitioner Versus District Magistrate and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to respondent No.1-District Magistrate, Haridwar, to consider and decide the complaint dated 17.12.2025 submitted by petitioner against respondent No.2, the then Tehsildar, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner’s name was recorded in respect of the property in- dispute by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, in the year 2001. Subsequently, an application has been moved by one-Smt. Sudeshna W/o Shri Sadhuram and Smt. Sushma W/o Rajendra, both R/o Husainpur, Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, relying upon the photocopy of the sale deed for mutation of their name in respect of the property in-dispute. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Laksar recorded the name of Smt. Sudeshna and Smt. Sushma in the revenue record. 2026:UHC:953 2 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the record was summoned by Tehsildar from the record room, but the report was that the record has already been weeded out. Still, the name of Smt. Sudeshna and Smt. Sushma was recorded. Alleging the corruption, a complaint dated 17.12.2025 was moved by petitioner before the learned District Magistrate, Haridwar. By the present writ petition, petitioner wants the respondent No.1- District Magistrate, Haridwar, to take action on the said complfsaint. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by learned Tehsildar, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. This is the order passed by Tehsildar, Laksar in discharging of duties as Tehsildar, Laksar. Against this order, the legal remedies are available to the petitioner to move an Appeal or Revision before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which according to the learned counsel for petitioner is still pending before the Competent Authority. 5. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition appears to be misconceived and appears to have been filed to harass the respondent No.2- Tehsildar. No interference is warranted. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed in-limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.02.2026 PN