Uttarakhand High Court
9 March vs Mohd Ahmad & Others on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:1464
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2700 of 2024
09 March, 2026
Irshad Hussain --Petitioner
Versus
Mohd Ahmad & Others
--Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel with Mr. Bharat Tewari
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is
challenging the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Addl. District
Magistrate (Revenue and Finance) Udham Singh Nagar
in Case No. 52/01 of 2017, Mohd. Ahmad and Anr. Vs.
Irshad Hussain and Ors.
2. Brief facts, of the case, are that the father of the
petitioner and proforma respondent no. 3 to 5 herein
Mr. Abdul Hameed and the father of respondent no. 1
and 2, Mr. Nisar Ahmad were brother and have equal
share over the property in question, i.e, land situated
at Village Sarkadi, Tehsil Bazpur, District U.S. Nagar,
i.e., gata no. 114 min area 0.221 hectares and gata no.
114 min area 0.354 hectares total area 0.575 hectares.
Subsequently, Mr. Abdul Hameed and Mr. Nisar Ahmad
during their lifetime executed their “will” on 20.03.1991
1
2026:UHC:1464
and 29.08.1994 and bequeathed the property in
question in favour of the petitioner and respondent no.
3 and since then they are in continuous possession over
the property in question.
Subsequently, proceeding under Section 6(A) of
the Consolidation of Holdings Act was initiated on the
basis of the will executed by Late Nisar Ahmad on
29.08.1994 and the name of the petitioner and his
brother-respondent no. 3 was ordered to be recorded in
the revenue record in place of Late Nisar Ahmad
pursuant to an order dated 23.05.2016, passed by the
Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bazpur,
District U.S. Nagar in case No. 350.
3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 23.05.2016,
respondent no. 1 and 2 preferred a revision being
Revision No. 5201 of 2016-17, Mohd. Ahmad & anr. Vs.
Irshad Hussain & Ors., and since the revision was time
barred revision, a delay condonation application was
also moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act. On
this application, objection was filed and the Revisional
Court vide order dated 29.06.2018 allowed the revision
and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation
Officer.
4. Against the order dated 29.06.2018, the petitioner
also preferred a Writ Petition No. 2807 of 2018, Irshad
Hussain vs. Mohd. Ahmad & Ors., which was decided on
21.02.2022, and the matter was remanded back to the
Deputy Director Consolidation with the direction to
reconsider the revision after passing appropriate order
on the delay condonation application. After the remand
2
2026:UHC:1464
order passed by the High Court, the Deputy Director
Consolidation, allowed the delay condonation
application by order dated 19.07.2024. Being aggrieved
with the same, now the instant petition has been
preferred.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned court below erroneously
passed the order impugned by which delay has been
condoned without assigning any reason, and, in fact,
allowed the same in arbitrary and cursory manner.
6. I perused the order impugned dated 19.07.2024
and while deciding the delay condonation application,
the Deputy Director of Consolidation/ ADM (Finance &
Revenue) adopt a liberal approach while considering
delay condonation application. Even otherwise it is
settled principle of law that a liberal approach to delay
condonation application under Section 5 of Limitation
Act prioritizes substantial justice over technical, rigid
adherence to time limit provided there is no gross
negligence or mala fide intent. Apart from this, merely
on the ground that the delay has been condoned, the
petitioner cannot be said to be seriously prejudice, and,
as such, I do not find any merit in this petition.
7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed
being devoid of merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
3
2026:UHC:1464
4
