Harish Chandra Sunal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

By means of this Writ Petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the inquiry report dated 19/12/2019 submitted by Mr. kailash Singh Toliya, the

Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital (Annexure No. 11).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary Revenue Uttarakhand to initiate inquiry about the alleged/non-

existent order dated 16/1189 through some independent agency other than Revenue Department of District Nainital.

Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 983 of 2016 as Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Dinesh Chandra Bhagat and Mr. Shankar Dutt

Bhagat (petitioners in the said writ petition), which was disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Nainital to take decision on representation

moved by the petitioner. Another Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3282 of 2017 was also filed by the petitioner as Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Dinesh

Chandra Bhagat and Mr. Shankar Dutt Bhagat, seeking a direction to District Magistrate, Nainital to conclude the inquiry pursuant to order passed in

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 983 of 2016. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2018. Operative portion of the said order is

reproduced below:-

“4. Primarily the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a change in the long standing revenue records, which cannot be done

in a writ petition. It is a settled position in law that long standing revenue records cannot be altered, except by orders of the competent court in civil or

revenue proceedings (as the case might be). Therefore, the petitioners have an effective remedy to initiate civil proceedings or revenue proceedings

before the appropriate authorities, if they are so advised. No interference is called for by this Court.

Writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.â€​

Pursuant to order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 983 of 2016, Additional District Magistrate, Nainital was appointed as Inquiry

Officer by District Magistrate, Nainital. Now, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital has concluded the inquiry and held that the

allegation made by the petitioner in his representation, that the order dated 16.11.1981 in Mutation Case No. 30/94 (80-81) does not exist is incorrect.

In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the report submitted by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Nainital, on 19.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the Institution and Dispatch Register of the Court of Tehsildar, Nainital, Mutation Case No.

30/94 (80-81) was neither filed nor decided. He further submits that the order dated 16.11.1981 is purported to have been passed by Peshkar, Nainital,

while, as per information supplied to petitioner, post of Peshkar is not created for Nainital Tehsil.

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that petitioner has no locus standi in the matter, as he has no

right, title or interest over the land, which was subject matter of Mutation Case No. 30/94 (80-81). He further submits that the order dated 16.11.1981

passed by Tehsildar was subject matter of appeals by the parties to the Mutation Case and those appeals were decided on merit and none of the

parties raised such plea that the order dated 16.11.1981 does not exist. He further submits that in earlier writ petitions, Mr. Harish Chandra Sunal was

simply Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners, as he himself had no right, title or interest over the land in question. He further submits that due to

fire in Nainital Collectorate premises in the year 2010, old revenue records have been lost, therefore, merely because the order dated 16.11.1981 is not

traceable, it cannot be said that said order does not exist or it is a forged document.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the humble opinion that the issue raised by petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be decided in public law

remedy. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the inquiry report submitted by Additional District Magistrate, Nainital while exercising power of judicial

review. If petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by the order dated 16.11.1981, then he can have recourse to such remedy, as is available in law.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.