Noorhasan And Two Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The case of the petitioners is that a wrong consolidation proceeding is being adopted in Village Chudiyala Mohanpur, Pargana and Tehsil, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. The petitioners along with other villagers sent a representation dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition) to the Secretary, Revenue Board, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, the respondent no.2, regarding adopting wrong consolidation proceedings by the authorities with request to cancel the present consolidation proceeding and restore the consolidation of 1962, but, till date, no action has been taken by the respondent no.2. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) submitted by petitioners alongwith other villagers as expeditiously as possible, or within the stipulated time granted by this Hon’ble Court, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

(II) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favor of petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case.

(III) Award the cost of writ petition in favour of petitioners.”

Heard Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Susheel Kumar, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition) as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate has sought six weeks’ time for the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the Writ Petition).

On the request of both the parties, the present writ is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 30.09.2024, submitted by the petitioners, according to law and as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks’ from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.