Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1081 of 2005 (Old No.24858 of 1993) Om Prakash Sharma and others. ……… Petitioners Versus The Board of Revenue, Allahabad and others. …….. Respondents ……………….. Sri Lokpal Singh learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. Sri J.P. Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.03.1993 passed by respondent No.1/Board of Revenue in Second appeal No.31 of 1987-88, Mukesh Sharma versus Jai Prakash and others. 2. The respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration bearing Suit No.38 of 1986 before the Assistant Collector, Kirtinagar (District Tehri Garhwal) against the Gaon Sabha under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that he is in adverse possession of the land of the Gaon Sabha for the last 40 years and has therefore acquired Bhumidhari rights. Before the trial court the petitioners sought impleadment on the ground that they are also co-tenants alongwith respondent No.2 which was allowed. The parties have contested the suit and led their evidence. 2 The trial court declared the petitioners and the respondent No.2 as co-bhumidhars and fixed their share, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.1987. The respondent No.2 challenged the said judgment before the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, the first appellate court. The appellate court confirmed the findings, recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 3. Against the said order dated 26.04.1988 passed by first appellate court the respondent No.2 filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of revenue has allowed the second appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court as well as first appellate court by the impugned judgment and order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the courts below. The second appellate court recorded finding that the case of appellant (respondent No.2 herein) was for declaration of Bhumidhar with transferable rights while contrary to this the claim of the petitioners was to declare them Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. The decree passed by the trial court does not show as to how the trial court determined the rights of the parties. Further, it has also been recorded in the order of second appeal that the name of petitioner was not recorded over the land in question and only the name of Hari Prasad was recorded whose right was succeeded by late Prem Kishore and thereafter by the respondent No.2. I find that the second appellate court rightly set aside the orders by the trial court as well as first appellate court. The 3 impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh