HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1388 of 2006 M/S) Karnail Singh S/o Sri Laskar Singh … Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand State and others …. Respondents Dated:- 15th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Gopal Krishan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Gopal K. Vemra, the learned counsel for the private respondents. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a declaration that he is in possession of the land in question since 1973 and, consequently, has perfected his rights. The suit was dismissed against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed and, thereafter, preferred a second appeal, which was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred a review which was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that he has been in unauthorised possession of the land in question since 1973 has been proved in the civil suit filed by him. The learned counsel further submitted that the said decree of the Civil Court was binding on the Revenue Court and this aspect has has not been considered by the Revenue Courts. The learned counsel further submitted that the Revenue Court without framing substantial questions of law arbitrarily dismissed the appeal, which was also incorrect. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders, the court finds that the suit filed by the petitioner before Civil Court was decreed exparte against the original tenure holder and, therefore, such exparte decree cannot be held to be a conclusive finding with regard to the unauthorised possession of the petitioner. In the absence of the original tenure holder being brought on record, such judgment cannot be taken into consideration and was rightly not accepted by the Revenue Court. The court further finds that the ceiling proceedings were undertaken under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 in which the land in question has been declared surplus, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner. Consequently, on these two grounds, the Revenue Court rightly rejected the suit of the petitioner. This court does not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 15.07.2010 LSR