Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & Anr. v. Ajay Rawat & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.08.2025 3
Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rishab Ranghar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Dehradun Uttarakhand in Revenue Revision No.96/2022-23, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad & others, annexed as annexure no.4 and thereby quashing the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned court of Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Camp, Dehradun in Revision No.15/2021- 22 Shri Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & another vs. Ajay Rawat, annexed as annexure no.3.
The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary details are that a Revenue Suit No.06/2009-10, under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & another was instituted by the respondent no.1. The suit was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.05.2015 when the petitioners-defendants did not appear before the learned trial court despite service. Later on, vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018, the said revenue suit was 1 decreed ex-parte against the petitioners-defendants. Challenging the said ex-parte judgment and decree dated
12.12.2018, a Revenue Revision No.15/2018-19 was filed the petitioners-defendants before the court of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Camp, Dehradun. The revision-petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 08.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.06.2023, passed by learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, respondent no.1/plaintiff challenged the said judgment and order by filing a Revenue Revision No.96/2022-23, Ajay Rawat vs. Jassi Prasad Bahuguna & another before the Board of Reveune, Dehradun. The said revision filed by respondent no.1/plaintiff was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2025, whereby the order of Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Camp, Dehradun dated
08.06.2023 has been set-aside holding therein that the summons were personally served upon the petitioners- defendants and summons were also served upon them through speed post.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the summons has never been received by the petitioners-defendants and signatures petitioners-defendants were forged upon the summons. He further submits that petitioners-defendants usually sign in Hindi, while the signatures in the summons are in English.
As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1/plaintiff submits that the fact of forging the signatures of the petitioners/defendants has never been mentioned by the petitioners even in their revision petition filed before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Camp, Dehradun. For the first time, this ground is being taken before this Court. 2
Operative part
I have perused the judgment and order passed by learned Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal as well as the judgment and order of Board of Revenue. Since the summons in the revenue suit were served upon the petitioners/defendants not only personally through the process server, but also via speed post, this Court does not find any procedural irregularity and illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in- limine.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.08.2025 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — s. 209.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.