Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 316 (UTT)

. v. .

2020-08-21

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The State Government had filed a writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 20.05.2015, as passed by the Record Officer, Udham Singh Nagar in Revision No.52/22 of 2011-2012, State vs. Narendra Vishwas and Others, as well as the order dated 18.09.1996 passed by the Survey Naib Tehsildar, Gadarpur. 2. The said judgment which has been rendered, it was qua the applicants/respondents, therein and the State, who had challenged the order of 18.09.1996 passed by Survey Naib Tehsildar in the Revision No.52/22 of 2011-12, State vs. Narendra Vishwas (deceased) and Others, as well as by the other respondents in Revision No.52/24 of 2000 which has been challenged by the petitioners of Writ Petition No.1147 of 2016, Varun Biswas and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. The dismissal of the revision of State by the order passed by the Assistant Record Officer on 20.05.2015, its effect would be that the order of 18.09.1996 i.e. (Annexure 3) to the writ petition would not attain finality qua the remaining parties to the proceedings before the ARO; except the State. As far as the State is concerned, their contentions as against the order dated 18.09.1996 passed by the Survey Naib Tehsildar attains finality as soon as their writ petition is dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.11.2015, which is being sought to be recalled by the respondents of this writ petition, under an apprehension that the said dismissal of the writ petition of the State as against the order of 20.05.2015, may create an embargo/hurdle against them, if they question the validity of the orders dated 18.09.1996 or the Revisional Court’s order dated 20.05.2015,, which is impugned by him in his writ petition being Writ Petition No.1147 of 2016. 3. This Court is of the view that in a litigation, if there are number of parties, who are contesting the issue involved in the matter, each of the parties as soon as the lis is decided gets an independent right of appeal or revision, which is available under law. 3. This Court is of the view that in a litigation, if there are number of parties, who are contesting the issue involved in the matter, each of the parties as soon as the lis is decided gets an independent right of appeal or revision, which is available under law. Dismissal of a revision or dismissal of a writ petition, as against one of the parties before the court below proceedings, who are aggrieved by the judgment of the Revisional Court, will not create any bar as such against the other remaining parties to the proceedings in a revision, if they independently want to give the challenge to the orders before the superior court, because the dismissal of the writ petition would only be an inter-se binding to the State Government not to the present applicants who were the respondents in the present writ petition and who have already reserve their rights by challenging the impugned orders in Writ Petition No.1147 of 2016, which is pending. 4. Hence, while holding the application for recall as well as delay condonation application preferred by the respondents to the writ petition as not maintainable because it was dismissal of the writ petition of the State, it will not prejudice the rights of the respondents’ applicants seeking recall. Consequently, the recall application is rejected, but rejection of the recall is with a clarification that this dismissal of writ petition, qua the State will not be taken as to be a cessation of rights of the petitioner to raise all his grievances in the writ petition, which they have already preferred against the impugned order i.e. Writ Petition No.1147 of 2016.