UKHC010114552026 2026:UHC:5497 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2014/2026 Chandra Shekhar Joshi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, Additional CSC, for the State. (2) Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1063 of 2025 seeking regularisation of possession over a piece of land situate in Tehsil Ramnagar, District Nainital in his favour. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to take decision in the matter within two months. In terms of that order, Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Uttarakhand has passed an order on 29.4.2026, whereby petitioner’s claim for regularising his possession over the land in question has been rejected by holding that (i) there is no evidence available with the petitioner that he is in possession over the land in question; (ii) petitioner is not a landless person, as land measuring 0.562 hectare was recorded in revenue records in the name of petitioner, which was sold out by him on 29.5.2007; and (iii) the land in question is recorded in Category 5(3)e and there is no policy or statutory provision which permits regularisation of possession over Category 5(3)e land. UKHC010114552026 2026:UHC:5497 (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision contained in government policy/statute, which permits regularisation over Category 5(3)e land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Secretary, Revenue misdirected himself by returning the finding that petitioner is not entitled for regularisation, while petitioner has not claimed regularisation of his possession and he simply wanted alteration in Category, where petitioner’s name was recorded. He submits that petitioner is entitled to be recorded in Category 4, but due to mistake by revenue officers, his name was recorded in Category 5(3)e. (4) Learned State Counsel submits that for change of Category, petitioner should have approached the appropriate judicial forum. He submits that petitioner had made a representation for regularising his possession, therefore Secretary, Revenue was justified in dealing with that aspect of the matter. (5) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, passed by Secretary, Revenue. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 7.7.2026 Pr PRABOD H KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198 d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FC A58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07 18:18:27 +05'30' UKHC010114552026 2026:UHC:5497