IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1713 OF 2007 (MS) Methodist Episcopal Church of South Asia. ………..Petitioner. Versus Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand and others. ….Respondents. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.S.Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. Udyog Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. None appears for rest of the respondents. 5th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand Circuit Court, Nainital in Revision No. 169 of 2003 (Restoration Application No. ….. of 2007 (contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), whereby the application for impleadment as well as setting aside the ex parte order has been rejected on the ground that no impleadment application was ever moved either before trial Court, the first Appellate Court or the Revisional Court. 2. Thereafter, applications dated 23.4.2007 and 20.5.2007 have been moved by the petitioner for impleadment and another for recalling of the ex parte order. 2 3. According to the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner has acquired ownership right by virtue of one agreement. 4. The Additional Commissioner has recorded a finding that how by virtue of an agreement, the right of recorded Bhumidhar can be transferred? There was no proof on record regarding such transfer. American Methodist Mission is recorded Bhumidhar, there was no right on record placed before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Circuit Court, Nainital to show as to how the petitioner has become the Bhumidhar and owner of the property. The dispute is that the owner of the property vests with the American Methodist Mission and until and unless by a competent Court, the right and title of the petitioner is not declared, there cannot be any transfer in favour of the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, these applications have been rejected. If the petitioner has acquired any right, he may go and file a suit for declaration of his title as the petitioner was not party in the proceedings and his right and title can be declared, if he has protected his right and title under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the respondent. 6. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 25.8.2007 passed by the Additional Chief 3 Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand Circuit Court, Nainital. 7. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 5.8.2008 Rathour