AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
Heard.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by respondent no.2-Consolidation Officer (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) whereby restoration application filed by one Navin Kumar and others has been allowed.
From perusal of the provision of Section 48 of the Uttarakhand Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (to be referred to as ‘the Act’), it is reflected that the order dated 20.07.2022 is revisable since the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the same by way of filing a revision under the said provision..
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2, who has passed the impugned order, is the same person who earlier rejected the case of petitioner for non-prosecution.
From the record, it transpires that the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is not correct.
Since the petitioner has a remedy of filing revision u/s 48 of the Act, therefore, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to avail the appropriate remedy as available to him under law.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.