2026:UHC:3675 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL 13th MAY, 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 1301 OF 2026 (M/S) Keshav Kumar Divedi .... Petitioner Versus Sarita and Another ..…Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. The petitioner – Keshav Kumar Divedi preferred instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.04.2026, passed by the Additional Collector/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance/ Revenue), District Udham Singh Nagar in Revision No.52/03 of 2025, “Sarita Chaube vs. Keshav Kumar Divedi”, with the additional prayer to maintain the status quo regarding the nature and status of the land situated in Khata No.21, Khasra No.104 min, Rakba 0.4020 hectare in village Bhamrola, Tehsil Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the name of the respondent no.1 was recorded in the revenue record in terms of Section 33A of Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short, “Act, 1901). Subsequent thereto, the petitioner report to the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 to show his possession over the land in which the 1 2026:UHC:3675 name of the respondent was recorded in terms of Section 33A of the Act, 1901, on the basis of a registered will dated 17.12.2021. On this report, the Tehsildar passed an order on 15.03.2023, to maintain status quo. Against the order of Tehsildar, the respondent no.1 preferred a revision under Section 219 of the Act, 1901, on the ground that the Tehsildar has no power to direct the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the land in question in which his name is already recorded in the revenue entries. 3. In this revision, the Additional Collector on 20.04.2025, stayed the order of status quo. While staying the order, Additional Collector observed that the order passed by the Tehsildar to maintain the status quo was completely without jurisdiction and against the mandate of Section 34 of the Act, 1901. 4. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel, submits that the status quo order passed by the Tehsildar is in fact as per the mandate of Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 because under Section 34 of the Act, because under this Section, the necessary correction has to be made on the basis of the possession. He also submits that the petitioner already filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondent no.1, which is still pending for adjudication. 5. On the other side, Mr. Sudhir Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel, in order to assist this Court submits that under Section 34 of the Act, 1901, the Tehsildar has no 2 2026:UHC:3675 power to maintain the status quo in respect of the revenue entries and the petitioner can claim his right over the property in question by availing a civil remedy by filing a regular suit which he has already availed. He submits that the plea of changing the nature of the land wherein the entries were made of the respondent no.1 in terms of Section 33A of the Act, cannot be taken in a proceeding under Section 33A read with Section 34 of the Act, and he can take all these plea in the pending suit which he has already filed for seeking permanent injunction. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel and after gone through the relevant provision, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, however, the dismissal of the petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in respect of the land in question. 7. At this juncture, Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner submits that since the proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 is still pending for consideration before the Tehsildar, therefore, the Tehsildar may be directed to expedite the proceeding as early as possible. 8. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be innocuous. 9. In such view of the matter, the Tehsildar is also directed to expedite the proceeding under Section 34 of the 3 2026:UHC:3675 Act, 1901, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced with the observation as above. __________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. Date: 13.05.2026 Pant/ 4