CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shiv Charan vs Maan Singh And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 May 2026 · Citation: (2026) 05 UK CK 0361

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J · Siddhartha Sah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 176 · Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 3A
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 545 Of 2026 (M/S)
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

10 paragraphs · 351 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The petitioner filed a case (Case No.26/2025- 26, "Shiv Charan vs. Maan Singh and Others") under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand). On 28.01.2026, the learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun restrained both the parties from selling the suit-property and altering its nature. A Revision (No.56/2025-2026) was filed by the respondent no.1 (herein) before the Board of Revenue.

2.

It has been observed in the revision that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have not been complied with. Therefore, the revision has been allowed on 12.02.2026. The Board of Revenue has remanded the case by setting aside the order dated 28.01.2026.

3.

Heard Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

4.

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate submitted that the Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was omitted by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide Notification dated 03.02.1981 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand).

5.

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate, has requested on instructions to decide the present writ petition by directing the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun to decide the temporary injunction application, filed by the petitioner- plaintiff, within two months.

6.

The said request has not been opposed by Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate.

7.

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate, submitted that the petitioner and the respondent no.1 undertake that they will not create any third party interest over the property in-question till the interim injunction application is decided.

8.

Having heard, the present writ petition (WPMS No.545 of 2026) is disposed of by directing the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun to decide the interim injunction application, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, as per law, within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

9.

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