THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 779 of 2002. Madan Singh and two others. … Petitioners. Vs. Shri Shyam Sunder and three others. …Respondents. Sri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Dinesh Chauhan and Sri Asif Ali, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3. Sri N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.4. Date October 17, 2008. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) An order or direction to set aside the order dated 25-8- 1994 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Upper Pargana Adhikari Kashipur, the order dated 17-12-1996 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaun Division, Nainital and the order dated 31-8-2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Circuit Court, Nainital. (ii) An order or direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition. (iii) An order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioners filed a Suit under Section 229 B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on the basis of a non- 2 registered agreement, which was executed by Sri Shyam Sunder, respondent no.1, in favour of Hayat Singh, father of the petitioners. It is stated in the writ petition that the possession was also delivered under the said agreement to the petitioners’ father and, according to the petitioners, after the death of their father, the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute. It has been further stated that proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. were drawn between the petitioners as well as the respondent, which ended in favour of the petitioners and possession was also given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The revision preferred against the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. passed by the S.D.M. was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. The suit has been filed on the basis of the unregistered agreement, executed by respondent no.1, as mentioned above, and it has been contended that if the document is unregistered but the possession was delivered under the agreement, the possession would be deemed to be adverse against the person, who executed the agreement. The suit was contended by the respondents. Written statement was filed and evidence was adduced by both the parties. It is pleaded in the written statement that the respondent no.1 never executed any agreement in favour of the father of the petitioners and never handed over the possession. The petitioners did not file the original copy of the agreement and only photocopy of the agreement was filed before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit mainly on two grounds- first, that the photocopy is not admissible in evidence and the original agreement, on the basis of which claim has been made by the petitioner and stood in their possession, has not been filed and proved and secondly, the other co- tenure holder did not execute the agreement in favour of the father of the petitioners and, according to the petitioners also, only the respondent no. 1 had executed the agreement in favour of the father of the petitioners. 3 So far as the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is concerned, if there is any dispute between the parties regarding the possession, possession can only be delivered to the person, who was in possession of the land two months prior to the date of incident, but the party concerned has to file a regular suit for declaration of his title. The suit which was filed under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act was dismissed by the Assistant Collector. Appeal too was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners could not prove the agreement, which was executed in favour of their father and the possession cannot be treated to be adverse and the petitioners entirely failed to establish their case. The learned trial court did not find favour with the petitioners and has rightly held that the petitioners do not acquire title on the basis of adverse possession and they have miserably failed to establish their case on the basis of agreement or adverse possession. The appellate court also did not find favour with the petitioners and dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the trial court. The second appeal no. 51 of 1996-97, filed by the petitioners, has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31- 8-2002 and it was held that the petitioners failed to prove their possession for 12 years continuously against the true owner. The co- tenure holder had not executed the agreement in favour of the petitioners. For the discussion above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed outright. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs easy. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4