Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2397/2026 of NANDAN SINGH KANWAL Vs RITA SATI on 10 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2397/2026 Nandan Singh Kanwal --Petitioner Versus Rita Sati --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt,
UKHC010139212026
2026:UHC:7054
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2397/2026
Nandan Singh Kanwal
--Petitioner
Versus
Rita Sati
--Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by respondent against the petitioner qua a small piece of land over which petitioner had allegedly constructed stairs and Aangan (courtyard). In that suit, petitioner raised an objection that the suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA&LR Act, 1950. The said objection was turned down by learned trial court vide order dated 25.11.2025 by holding that there is a declaration issued by the Competent Authority under Section 143 of the said Act, therefore, the bar contained in Section 331 would not be attracted in the matter.
3. Petitioner filed revision against that order. The revision petition was dismissed by learned District Judge vide judgment dated 14.07.2026.
4. This Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Law is well settled that after declaration under Section 143 of UPZA&LR Act, Revenue
UKHC010139212026
2026:UHC:7054 Courts under UPZA&LR Act cannot exercise jurisdiction qua the land for which such declaration is issued. This aspect has been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chand (Dead) through LR(s) vs. Brijesh Kumar & others, reported as 2025 INSC 1005.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the land in dispute is different from the one, regarding which declaration under Section 143 UPZA&LR Act, was issued.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show whether this ground was taken in the revision filed before learned District Judge. No such ground is taken by petitioner before the revisional court; thus, he cannot raise altogether new ground at this stage. There is no scope for interference in the matter.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
10.08.2026 Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d 1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4 610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.08.10 08:06:52 -07'00'