IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1921 of 2009 (M/S) Virendra Singh, S/O Late Sri Sher Singh, R/O Village Harchawala, Nalapani, Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun.. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Sri Hari Ram Singh, S/O Late Sri Raj Narain Singh, 2. Late Sri Ram Singh S/O Late Sri Raj Narain Singh (since deceased) succeeded by:- 2/1 Sri Sanjay Pradhan S/O Late Sri Ram Singh, 2/2 Sri Sandeep Pradhan, S/O Late Sri Ram Singh 3. Sri Bhagwan Singh, S/O Late Sri Raj Narain Singh, 4. Sri Ajay Singh, S/O Late Sri Raj Narain Singh, 5. Sri Dhan Bahadur Singh S/O late Sri Raj Narain Singh, All residents of village Harchawala, Nalapani, Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun. 6. Sri Shyam Singh S/O Late Sri Sher Singh R/O village Harchawala, Nalapani, Pargana Parwadoon, District Dehradun. … Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok Mehra,Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. Rab, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Date November 20, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 9932 of 2009) Learned counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 9-10-2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner in Revision No. 41/2002-03 Hari 2 Ram Singh and others Vs. Virendra Singh and others (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be decided at the admission stage to itself. While allowing the revision, the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner has observed that the long-standing entries were illegally disturbed in summary proceeding. It was also held that Mr. Raj Narain was sole owner in his own right and the property in dispute was self acquired property. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner Virendra Singh moved an application before the Record Officer Dehradun under Section 54 of the Land Revenue Act stating therein that the property in dispute was of late Sri Fateh Singh, the grandfather of the petitioner and respondent no.6. It was also contended that Fateh Singh had four sons, namely, Raj Narain, Narain Singh, Sher Singh and Nand Ram. According to the petitioner, this property was Hindu Undivided Family property and after the death of Fateh Singh, the names of above four sons should have been mutated. However, mutation was wrongly made in favour of Raj Narain, which should be deemed in the capacity of Karta Khandan. The petitioner and respondent no. 6 claiming themselves co-sharers being sons of Sher Singh, sought mutation. The Assistant Record Officer vide his order dated 18-3-1994 allowed the application of the petitioner as co-sharer and it was observed that the property in dispute was HUF property. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the Record Officer dated 18-3-1994 (Annexure-3 to the petition), respondent nos. 1 to 5 preferred Appeal No. 87/93-94 under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act, which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11-6-1997. Further 3 aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Record Officer as well as the appellate Court, the respondents preferred Revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, which was subsequently transferred and registered as Revision No. 41/2002-03 before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The revision was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 9-10-2009. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties have stated that similar controversy has been decided by this Court vide order dated 9-11-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 1859 of 2009 (M/S). I have also perused the judgment dated 9-11-2009 passed by this Court. The controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18-3- 1994 passed by the Assistant Record Officer, the order dated 11-6- 1997 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the first appellate court (Annexure–4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 9-10- 2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner are hereby quashed. However, it is directed that since regular suit is pending under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, it would be open for the court, hearing the suit under Section 229B, to decide all the questions of fact and law without being influenced by the findings given in the summary proceeding. No order as to costs. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5 6 7 8 ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 9 10 11 12 13