S ORDERS WPMS No. 2973 of 2025 · Uttarakhand High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PANKAJ PUROHIT
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 s. 210
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the present writ petition for filing appropriate appeal under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901.
- Para 66. Permission so sought is granted. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.10.2025
Judgment
Mr. Subhash Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, S.C. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order passed by respondent no.4-Tehsildar, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, whereby the application of the petitioner for mutation was rejected and instead of availing the remedy as available to the petitioner under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, petitioner has moved this Court straightway by filing the present writ petition, which cannot be done.
Accordingly at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the present writ petition for filing appropriate appeal under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Operative part
Permission so sought is granted. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.10.2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 — s. 210.
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.