CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bhullan And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 UK CK 1839

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Miscellaneous Single No. 363 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 353 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate & Tehsildar/Revenue Officer, Pargana/Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar to decide and conclude the Application/ Representations moved by the petitioners on 08.07.2025 within a stipulated period of time.

(ii) To direct the respondents to remove the clerical mistake done by the respondent authority by misreading the stay order of Uttarakhand High Court given in WPMS No.2416/2018 being erroneously typed on the Khatauni of petitioners 1 to 3 having Old Khata No.95/New Khata No.97, bearing Khasra No.47 situated at Mauja Sultanpur Sabatwali, Pargana/Tehsil, Roorkee, District Haridwar in favour of the petitioners.”

2.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that one stay order dated 10.08.2018, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No.2416 of 2018, has wrongly been entered in the Khatauni of petitioner nos.1 to 3, pertaining to Old Khata No.95/New Khata No.97, bearing Khasra No.47, situated at Mauja Sultanpur Sabatwali, Pargana/Tehsil, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The petitioners moved an application before Tehsildar, Roorkee, seeking rectification of the said mistake; however, the same has not been decided by the Tehsildar, despite the application having been submitted on 08.07.2025. The said application has been annexed as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

3.

An innocuous prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the Tehsildar is directed by this Court to decide the application dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) within a stipulated period, the ends of justice would be met.

4.

There is no opposition to this proposition from the learned counsel for the respondents.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that respondent no.3, i.e., the Tehsildar, Roorkee, District Haridwar and it is provided that he shall decide the petitioners’ application dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

6.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.