Kuldip Prasad Dhungel

Vs.
Hari Prasad Upadhaya
et.al

B.A.L.L.B
2nd semester
Nepal Law Campus
Prepared by: Aashish Keshari
Roll No : 09
Presented To: Dr. Bal Bahadur Mukhiya
 Case Details:

• Writ no: 2065

• Subject: Certiorari
• Decided By: Joint Bench;
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Surendra prasad Singh
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Harigovinda singh pradhan
• Decision date: 2044/12/21 Sunday
• Decision no: 3324
• Published on: NKP 2045,vol.1,pg.no.17
• Applicant(Plantiff)
Kuldip prasad Dhunge

• Respondent(Defedent)
Hari prasad Upadhyaya
 ADVOCATED BY:
•From the side of Applicant
Learnt senior Adv. Mr. Narhari Acharya

•From the side of Respondent

Learnt senior Adv. Mr. Khagendra Basnet
Learnt senior Adv. Mr. Daman Dhungana
 Facts of the Case

• Applicant kuldip Prasad Dhungel bought the land of

4-12-08-02 from Anand Raj dhungel on Date 042-08-
02
• Hari Prasad upadhyaya is newphew of Anand Prasad
Dhungel
• The sold land was adjoined to both of them.
• Hari Prasad upadhyaya claimed in malpot office to
redeem the sold adjoined land on the basis of chapter
on transaction no.11 and chapter on registration no.35
 Decision of Malpot Office

• Land Revenue Office(Malpot) office decided

to redeem the land by mentioning their rights
in accordance with the relation.
• Chapter on no.35
• ''…… if the person who is duty bound to permit
redemption of property appears and shown the
reason property,and it seems that decision has to
be made upon evaluation or examining the
evidence,the office shall pass a decree informing
them to make a complaint or case within 35 days
of such a decree……..''
 Claim of Applicant on RDC

• Instead of identifying the generation Malpot office gave

verdict on the basis of citizenship certificate where:
• Though Hari Prasad was named as Upadhyaya and Anand
raj was named as Dhungel we cannot say that they do not
belong to the same family.
• Instead of giving verdict to claim within 35 days to redeem
the sold land, applicant was not provide with the right of
chapter on registration no.35
 Decision of RDC

• RDC approved the decision of malpot office without verifying

the necessary evidence.
 Writ petitioned on supreme
court
• On the basis of verdict given by malpot
office and RDC, Applicant filed a writ
petition to repeal the earliar decision through
Certiori with Mandamus.
Response of malpot office

• When the nearest right holders buys the adjoined land, the
distant right holder cannot redeem the land.
Chapter on transaction no.11
• ''…….where the near heir has purchased the property, the
outsider heir shall not be entitled to redeem it despite that
such heir may have easement or inconvenience in view of
the sold property.’’
• The claimant's land seemed to be adjoined through trace
and field book, so it had to be repealed.
 Response of Hari Prasad Upadhyaya

• The land to Hari Prasad Upadhyaya and his wife is

adjoined to that of Kuldip and was on use for daily
household purposes.
 Response of RDC

• There is no proof to show that Kuldip and Hari

Prasad Upadhyaya do not belong to same relation.
So, this issue is not debatable.
 Decision of supreme court

• Anand Raj Dhungel and Hari prasad upadhyaya are neither

adjoiner or right holder.
• Chapter on registration no.35
• So, on the basis of it,malpot office should refer court to
study evidence whether to redeem the land or not.
• Hence, the earliar decision were found unlawful and was
repealed through the order of certiorari.

 
Any Questions??
Thanks!