COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 939/2002 (Old No. 22683/1999) Naseem Ahmad & Others …….Petitioners Versus Board of Revenue & Others. …….Respondents Sri M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4. 28th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 17.2.1999 and 18.10.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue and Assistant Collector 1st Class/Paraganadhikari respectively. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act before the respondent no. 2, Assistant Collector 1st Class/Paraganadhikari for declaring them Bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the basis of the adverse possession over the land in dispute. Petitioners were declared Bhumidhar of the land in dispute by the order dated 6.9.1991 passed by the respondent no. 2. 3. Thereafter respondent no. 4, Sharif Ahmad and father of respondent no. 6 to 8, Aziz Ahmad filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for declaring them a co-tenure holder 2 along with the petitioners of the land in dispute, which was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 18.10.1993. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.10.1993, petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut Division, Meerut, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 10.1.1994. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.1.1994, respondents preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad. Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal by the judgment and order dated 17.2.1999 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.10.1993 passed by the trial court. 5. The Board of Revenue agreed with the findings of the trial court and held that the land in dispute was being cultivated by late Sri Natthu who is father of the petitioners and respondent no. 5 and grandfather of respondent no. 6, 7 & 8. After the death Sri Natthu, the names of his five sons were entered in the Khatauni, which is also evident from the Khasra of 1359 fasli. But names of the respondents were later on removed during the consolidation proceedings. It is not clear that as to why the names of the respondents were removed from the relevant records and on what basis it was done. It is also not clear that who had ordered to remove the names of the respondents from the relevant records. Therefore, respondents were rightly declared co-tenure holders along with the petitioners over the land in dispute. 6. The impugned orders have been passed on merit and the findings are based on consolidation and revenue 3 records. Hence, matter is concluded by the finding of fact. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below and as such, impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 28.8.2008 Prabodh