Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned S.D.M (Bhawar) Haldwani,
Nainital; and or/
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix Stone Pillars in accordance with the report of
Amin dated 23.06.2015 in terms of provisions contained under Section 41 of Land Revenue Act.
(iii) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of
the case.
2. The land of the petitioner forms part of Khasra No.747 for which the name of the husband of the petitioner i.e. Pradeep Kumar Mishra is recorded
as a bhumidar with transferable rights vide order dated 25.09.2002 passed by Assistant Record Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Haldwani. The
husband of the petitioner moved an application seeking demarcation of his property on 26.03.2003. When no action was taken by the Revenue
Authority, the husband of the petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No.722 of 2005, in which this Court vide order dated 06.11.2006 directed the
Revenue Authority to demarcate the land in question within a period of one month. During the course of proceeding, the Life Insurance Corporation-
respondent No.3 moved several applications to delay the proceedings. Ultimately, on 03.06.2015, Survey Amin conducted the spot inspection in
presence of all parties and prepared fard of demarcation and submitted his report to Sub-Divisional-Magistrate on 23.06.2015, but the ARO/SDO,
Haldwani did not direct the Survey Amin to affix pillars. Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (M/S) No.2167 of 2015, and a
direction was issued on 31.08.2015 by the Court with the following effect:-
“Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents submits that let petitioner moved a detailed
representation before respondent no.2 with advance copy to Collector, Nainital within ten days from today annexing therewith copies of the
application moved under Section 41 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and order passed by this Court and report submitted by Survey Amin
whereupon appropriate decision shall be taken thereon preferably within next thirty days.
Ordered accordingly.â€
3. Accordingly, representation was moved before the Collector, Nainital, but no action was taken. Ultimately, the petitioner moved Contempt Petition
bearing CLCON No.295 of 2016. The learned SDM produced a letter before the Court stating that the decision on the application of the petitioner,
preferred under Section 41 of Land Revenue Act, had been taken.
3A. The concerned SDM has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner with the observation that the petitioner may re-approach the Court
concerned for demarcation under Section 41 of the Revenue Act, after having the revenue maps corrected.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that since the year 2006, her husband had been running from pillar to post to get the land
demarcated, but the Revenue Authority failed to comply with the order of the High Court and it is the duty of the Revenue Authorities to correct the
revenue map and demarcate the land as per the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act.
5. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act, an appeal is maintainable against the
impugned order, since the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy, accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. For the sake of convenience, Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act is reproduced hereunder:-
“210. Courts to which appeals lie. - (1)
Appeal shall lie under this Act as follows :
(a) to the Record Officer from orders passed by any Assistant Record Officer;
(b) (i) to the Commissioner from orders passed by a Collector or an Assistant Collector first class or Assistant Collector in charge of sub-
division.
(ii) to the Collector from orders passed by an Assistant Collector second class or Tahsildar.
(c) [***]
(2) [***]
(3) [***]
(4) [***]
(5) [***]
(6) No appeal shall lie against an order passed under Sections 28, 33, [* * *], 39 or 40.â€
7. It is true that the writ petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal before the competent Revenue Authority, but from the record, it is clear that the writ
petitioner has already filed writ petitions, in which a direction was issued by the Court to demarcate the land. The petitioner had already moved an
application under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, and her husband too moved an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, seeking
correction of the revenue map, but both the revenue authorities have failed to comply with the provision. Previously, the husband of the petitioner was
running from pillar to post and now the petitioner, who is an old lady, aged about 71 years, is facing the same problems. It is a duty of Revenue
Authority to correct the map and, accordingly, to demarcate the property as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Act.
8. From the record, after intervention of the Court, the Survey Amin submitted his report on 23.06.2015, but in spite of that, the concerned Revenue
Authority has failed to affix pillars on the land.
9. The petitioner moved a representation in compliance of the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2167 of 2015 before the
District Magistrate, Nainital. However, on a perusal of the record, it appears that the representation has still not been decided. Although, there is a
provision under the Land Revenue Act to file an appeal against the impugned order but since the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/B)
No.722 of 2005 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.2167 of 2015 have not been complied with in letter and spirit by the District Magistrate as well as by the
concerned SDM, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to again relegate the petitioner to knock the door of the Appellate Court.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the respondent
no.2-S.D.M.(Bhawar), Haldwani, Nainital in Revenue Case No.5/23 year 2014-15. In the interest of justice, the District Magistrate as well as the
SDM are directed to proceed with the matter qua petitioner and decide the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act,
at the earliest possible, but not later than six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
11. Pending applications stand disposed of, accordingly.
