Anil Kumar Bisht PANKAJ MIGLANI, ,AAKIB AHMED vs State of Uttarakhand Advocate - C.S.C. — WPPIL/88/2025

Case under Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901) Amendment Act, 2020 (Act No. 04 of 2021) Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: UKHC010072332025

Next Hearing

: -

e-Filing Number

20-05-2025

Filing Number

WPPIL/3593/2025

Filing Date

20-05-2025

Registration No

WPPIL/88/2025

Registration Date

20-05-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ( 45 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Acts & Sections

Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901) Amendment Act, 2020 (Act No. 04 of 2021) Section 226

Petitioner(s)

Anil Kumar Bisht PANKAJ MIGLANI, ,AAKIB AHMED

Respondent(s)

State of Uttarakhand Advocate - C.S.C.

Haridwar Roorkee Development Authority

Adv. SANDEEP KOTHARI

Ritu Agrawal

Adv. VIVEK PATHAK

Hearing History

Judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

23-05-2025

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

06-05-2026

ADMISSION MATTERS -25

04-05-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

04-05-2026

ORDERS ON APPLICATIONS -22

04-08-2025

FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3

Orders

06-05-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Case Summary: WPPIL No. 88/2025 Outcome: Case adjourned for two weeks. The court permitted respondent no.3 to file a fresh compounding application online for the sealed building portion, to be decided by respondent no.2 (HRDA) with a speaking order. Parties must maintain strict status quo pending the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPPIL No. 88/2025 Outcome: Case adjourned for two weeks. The court permitted respondent no.3 to file a fresh compounding application online for the sealed building portion, to be decided by respondent no.2 (HRDA) with a speaking order. Parties must maintain strict status quo pending the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case