2026:UHC:2901 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2453 of 2022 Hari Nandan Sanwal --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Urgency Application (IA/4/2026) is allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner for quashing the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3, by which respondent No.3 has rejected his application for recording his name in the revenue record in respect of Nayabaad Grant given to his father Late Jagdish Chandra Sanwal. 4. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that petitioner’s father was a retired army personnel, who was sanctioned Nayabaad Grant No.4/11/ year 1966-67 on 01.08.1967 for house courtyard and kitchen garden within the municipal limit of Tok Pataldev, Patti Khasparja, District Almora, on the recommendation of Deputy Commissioner, Almora, by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division. Petitioner’s father got possession over the said land and accordingly, after death of his father, petitioner is also in possession of the said land since grant was sanctioned. After the death of his father, when petitioner intended to affect mutation in the revenue record, went to the office of Tehsildar, it came to his knowledge that the land has never been entered in the name of his father in revenue record. This resulted into making an application by the petitioner before learned Collector, Almora on 04.12.2017 (Annexure No.3). On the 2026:UHC:2901 2 said application, report was called from Tehsidar and the report was submitted, wherein, it was reported that the land was given in Nayabaad Grant to the petitioner’s father and it has also been reported that the land was not entered in the name of petitioner’s father in the revenue record. Acting into the report of Tehsildar, learned Collector, District Almora, called various reports and in all those reports, it has been stated unanimously that the land should be recorded in the name of petitioner. 5. There is no dispute at the end of authorities that the land was sanctioned in favour of petitioner’s father and through his father, petitioner is in possession thereof. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned State Counsel, in which it has been stated that instead of moving application to learned Collector, Almora, the proceedings should have been initiated in respect of mutation before the concerned Tehsildar under Section 33 and 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. 7. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that the respondent by the impugned order has not rejected the claim of petitioner for recording his name in the revenue record rather it is merely stated in the said order that the petitioner may file a proper case before the Competent Court under Section 33 and 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. 8. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by petitioner, wherein, mainly the contents of writ petition has been reiterated and it is further submitted that in Section 33, 34 and 38 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, the limitation has been provided that within three months from the date of obtaining possession under a lease or from the date of succession, application for mutation should have been filed. In that way the claim of petitioner has become time-barred. 2026:UHC:2901 3 9. Having considered the rival submissions of parties and having perused the record carefully, this Court is of the view that once the respondents-State is in agreement that the Nayabaad Grant No.4/11/1966-67 has been granted to the father of petitioner for the purpose of house courtyard and kitchen garden admeasuring 5 Naalis of the land, way back in the year 1966-67, it would be futile exercise to direct the petitioner to go again before a court of law to justify his plea for entries in the revenue record. It is true that the limitation has been prescribed for making application for mutation and in that view of the matter, petitioner’s case has become time barred. Petitioner has moved the application and in that application, his claim has never been disputed by the respondents-State. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct the Tehsildar, Sadar Almora, to enter the name of petitioner, who is only son of Late Jagdish Chandra Sanwal, in respect of Nayabaad Grant 4/11/1966-67 in the revenue record within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.12) stands quashed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.04.2026 PN