High Court · 2025

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. 2. Ms. Anj ali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Raj esh Pandey, Counsel respondent no. 2. learned St anding / t he St at e of Ut t arakhand j udgm ent & By m eans of t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioner 4. dat ed challenged I st 25.03.2011 passed by Assist ant Collect or, Class, Laksar, Dist rict Haridw ar in Suit No.54 of 2006, whereby his Declarat ory Suit under Sect ion 229- B of Zam indari Abolit ion & Land Reform s Act , was dism issed. He has also challenged t he j udgm ent & order dat ed 08.06.2022 and 27.11.2024 passed by First and Second Appellat e Court s. I t t ranspires t hat pet it ioner filed a suit for 5. declaring him t o be a Bhum idhar, based on his cont inuous possession over t he land in quest ion before 03.06.1995, on t hat he belongs t o Scheduled Cast e and since possession t o 03.06.1995, in view of provision cont ained in Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act , 1950, he is ent it led t o be declared as a Bhum idhar. in quest ion dat es back t he ground t herefore, t he Learned t rial Court fram ed as m any as 5 6. issues and issue no. 2 was ‘whet her plaint iff is ent it led t o benefit of Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) of t he Act , in view of his possession over t he land in quest ion, which is prior t o 03.06.1995’. Learned t rial Court suit . Pet it ioner challenged j udgm ent & decree passed by t rial Court in First Appeal, which w as dism issed by Addit ional Com m issioner, Garhwal learned Division. filed Second t hereaft er, Pet it ioner, Appeal, which t oo was dism issed by Board of Revenue, Ut t arakhand. Thus, pet it ioner has lost dism issed t he from all t he t hree Court s.

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat j udgm ent rendered by learned t rial Court is unsust ainable and t he finding on issue no. 2, is unsust ainable.

8. Per cont ra, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat no evidence what soever w as led by t he pet it ioner in support of his cont ent ion t hat he is in possession from a dat e prior t o t he cut - off- dat e indicat ed in Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) , t herefore, learned t rial Court right ly dism issed t he suit . t he j udgm ent Perusal of

9. rendered by learned t rial Court reveals t hat t here was no docum ent ary evidence produced by pet it ioner from 03.06.1995. regarding his possession Pet it ioner had exam ined t wo w it nesses in support of his case, nam ely, Sureshpal and Chandrapal, however, bot h w it nesses could not m ake any st at em ent regarding t he khasra num ber and t he area of t he land in quest ion; t hose w it nesses also could not m ake any st at em ent regarding t he dat e from which t hey had seen pet it ioner in possession of t he land in quest ion. Before t he t rial Court , Gram Pradhan, Sm t . Pushpa, deposed t hat pet it ioner w as not in possession before 2007. The Halka Pat w ari, who was also exam ined as wit ness, w as post ed in t he concerned Halka only one year ago and he saw pet it ioner in possession t he day he assum ed charge in t he concerned Halka. in quest ion since t he

10. From perusal of t he j udgm ent rendered by learned t rial Court , it is revealed t hat learned t rial Court has considered & discussed all relevant aspect s, t herefore, t he said j udgm ent cannot be said t o be perverse. Learned First Appellat e Court and Second Appellat e Court were t herefore t he j udgm ent j ust ified rendered by learned t rial Court . in not int erfering wit h

11. Learned St at e Counsel has referred t o a j udgm ent rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court t he case of Sanj ay Kum ar Vs. The Collect or, Kanpur Dehat and ot hers, decided on 09.03.2025 in C.M.W.P. No. 13191 of 2005, for cont ending t hat claim ing benefit of Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act , t he claim ant m ust show t hat he is in unaut horized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his nam e is recorded in t he revenue records t hat pet it ioner’s possession is not recorded anywhere, t herefore Court s below rej ect ed his claim . Para 3 of t he of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - t he cut - off dat e. He subm it s t o “ 3. Whenever a new cut off dat e for confer ring benefit of Sect ion 122B( 4- F) of t he Act is provided, people belonging t o scheduled cast e st ar t claim ing benefit of t he said Sect ion by cr eat ing evidence of prior possession. I n view of t his ram pant m al- pract ice it is m ost essent ial t hat whenev er benefit of aforesaid Sub- sect ion ( 4- F) is claim ed t he claim ant m ust show t hat he is in unaut horized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his nam e is recorded in t he rev enue records prior t o t he cut off dat e or t he pr oceedings for his ej ect m ent m ust be pending since befor e t he cut off dat e. I f it is not so t hen no am ount of evidence can be look ed int o in t hat regard. I n m ost of t he cases like t he pr esent ones Pradhans, Lekhpals and ot her Rev enue aut horit ies in collusion wit h claim ant s give wr ong r eport s of possession of t he claim ant s prior t o t he cut off dat e. Absolut ely no reliance can be placed upon such report s. On t he cont rary disciplinary proceedings m ust be init iat ed against t hose Lekhpals and ot her revenue aut horit ies who give such report s. Whenev er any Lekhpal or any ot her r ev enue aut horit y gives a report t hat a person is in unaut horized possession of Gaon Sabha land since long befor e t he cut off dat e t hen act ion m ust be t ak en against him for his negligence t o r eport t he unaut horized occupat ion and init iat e proceedings of evict ion of t hat person befor e cut off dat e. Lekhpal t o give r eport of unaut horized occupat ion of any per son ov er Gaon Sabha land prom pt ly.” is bound

12. This Court , while exercising supervisory power under Art icle 227 of Const it ut ion, is not inclined t o int erfere wit h t he concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Court s below, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of “ Sadhana Lodh Vs. Nat ional I nsurance Com pany Lt d.” report ed in ( 2003) 3 SCC 524. I n such view of t he m at t er, t here is no

13. scope for int erference.

14. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

10.01.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f 9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F 5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL