High Court · 2025

W PM S/ 1 1 6 8 / 2 0 2 5 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J 1. Mr. Siddhart ha Singh, counsel for t he pet it ioners. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned t he St at e of St anding Counsel Ut t arakhand. 3. Mr. A.M. Shaklani, learned counsel for t he privat e respondent . learned

4. Pet it ioner filed a suit for declarat ion under Sect ion 229- B of UPZA&LR Act , 1950 which was dism issed by learned Assist ant Collect or 1 st Class, Kashipur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar j udgm ent dat ed 25.07.1998. Pet it ioner t hereaft er filed first appeal, which was also dism issed by learned Addit ional Com m issioner, Kum aon Division vide j udgm ent dat ed 17.05.1999. The second appeal filed by t he pet it ioner, however, was allowed by Board of Revenue vide j udgm ent dat ed 10.06.2004.

5. Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur challenged t he said j udgm ent passed in second appeal in a writ pet it ion, which was allowed, and t he m at t er was rem anded back t o Board of Revenue, wit h a direct ion t o fram e legal quest ion and decide t he second appeal afresh. The Board of Revenue now has dism issed t he second appeal filed by t he pet it ioner vide j udgm ent dat ed 23.09.2024. Pet it ioner has t hus, challenged t he j udgm ent and order passed by learned t rial court , first appellat e court as well as second appellat e court in t his writ pet it ion. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner 6. subm it s t hat upon rem and of t he m at t er, alt hough Board of Revenue fram ed t hree is no legal quest ions, however, discussion as t o how t hose quest ions were dealt wit h by t he second appellat e court . Thus, he subm it s t hat t his is fit case for rem and of t he m at t er. t here for cont ending Learned St at e Counsel, per cont ra, 7. has t aken t he Court t o page 34 & 35 of t he writ pet it ion t hat learned second appellat e court has not only discussed legal quest ions t he fram ed by it , but it has also given it s reasoning quest ions against t he pet it ioner. Thus, he subm it s infirm it y what soever in t he j udgm ent rendered by learned second appellat e court and t he writ pet it ion is liable t o be dism issed. for deciding is no t hose t here t hat Learned St at e Counsel furt her 8. subm it s t hat pet it ioner filed a declarat ory suit , which was num bered as Revenue Suit No. 22/ 144 of 1996- 97; pet it ioner t ook t hree pleas for claim ing t it le, ( i) t he land in quest ion belongs t o his forefat her and his nam e was wrongly ent ered in Cat egory- I V, ( ii) pet it ioner is cont inuing in possession over t he land in disput e since m ore t han last 50 years, and ( iii) t here was a groove over t he land in quest ion belonging t o pet it ioner ’s fam ily, which was in exist ence since last m ore t herefore he has t han 50 perfect ed his t it le by adverse possession. years; Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat 9. t he earliest docum ent , filed by pet it ioner in support of his claim , is Khaut ani of 1368 Fasli, which correspond t he calendar year 1960- 61, while t he land in in Town Area quest ion was vest ed t o Jaspur not ificat ion Com m it t ee, dat ed 11.08.1954. Thus, he subm it s t hat learned t rial court right ly dism issed t he suit as pet it ioner failed t o produce any evidence t hat t he groove was st anding over t he land in quest ion, before 1960. He furt her subm it s t hat t he plea t aken by pet it ioner, for claim ing declarat ion, was m ut ually dest ruct ive, as on t he one hand, he was claim ing t o be t he owner of t he land in quest ion and on t he ot her hand, he was claim ing t o be in adverse possession over t he land of Nagar Palika. t his set t led

10. Aft er hearing learned counsel for t he part ies and perusal of t he record, t his Court is of t he considered opinion t hat in which is not a case t he int erference under Art icle 227 of Const it ut ion would be warrant ed. Law is exercising supervisory j urisdict ion under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion, t his Court does not sit as a court of appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Sadhana Lodh v. Nat ional I nsurance Co. Lt d., report ed in ( 2003) 3 SCC 524. Para 7 of t he said j udgm ent is ext ract ed below: - t hat while “ 7 . The supervisory j urisdict ion conferred on t he High Court s under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion is confined only t o see whet her an inferior court or t ribunal has proceeded wit hin it s param et ers and not t o correct an error apparent on t he face of t he record, m uch less of an error of law. I n exercising t he supervisory power under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion, t he High Court does not act as an appellat e court or t he t ribunal. I t is also not perm issible t o a High Court on a t he pet it ion Const it ut ion t he evidence upon w hich t he inferior court or t ribunal purport s t o have passed t he order or t o correct errors of law in t he decision.” filed under Art icle 227 of reweigh review or t o t he t o m ake out a case

11. Since all t hree court s have consist ent ly held t hat pet it ioner has not been able declarat ion of Bhum idhari right s in his favour, find any reason t o int erfere wit h such concurrent finding in a writ pet it ion. t his Court does not

12. 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)

09.05.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08 d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F 4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL