IN THE COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 4037 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 28515/92) State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital ................Petitioner. Versus Sri Mohan Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Resident of Village Ittwa, Tahsil Sitarganj, District Nainital and five others. ............... Respondents. With Writ Petition No. 4034 of 2001 (M/S) State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital ...................Petitioner. Versus Sri Mohan Singh son of Ujagar Singh, Resident of Village Ittwa, Tahsil Sitarganj, District Nainital and five others. ...............Respondents Dated:- November 21, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-petitioner and Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 1-A. The controversy involved in both the abovementioned writ petitions are same, hence, they are being decided together by common Judgment for the sake of convenience. By means of aforesaid these writ petitions the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Judgment dated 29.1.1992 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. Brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the respondent no.1 and 1-A claiming possession over the land in dispute for more than 20 years and having acquired rights by way of adverse possession under Section 210 of the Act. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector-respondent no.4 and respondent nos. 1 and 1-A were declared bhumidhars. Aggrieved by the order of sub-Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Division, Nainital which was allowed, vide Judgment dated 16.7.1991. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the respondent nos. 1 and 1-A has preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, U.P. At Allahabad. The Board of revenue, vide its Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1992 set aside the decree passed by both the trial court as well as first Appellate Court and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 1-A. During the course of arguments, leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same controversy was before this Court in Writ Petition No. (M/S) 4035 of 2001 (Old No. 28513 of 1992), State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital Vs. Malkeet Singh & others. The legal question was also the same, i.e. whether the respondent nos. 1 and 1-A had perfected their rights before 3.6.193, and the amendment which was made by the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from 3.6.1981 shall be retrospective or prospective? The learned single Judge has held “The said amendment shall operate prospectively and shall not affect the title of respondent no. 1 since the respondent no.1 has perfected his title over the land in dispute much before the appointed day and, therefore, subsequent amendment would not at all affect his title.” The similar controversy is to be decided in the present writ petitions. I have perused the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue as well as in Writ Petition No. 4035 of 2001 (Old No. 28513 of 1992), State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital and I am also of the view that the controversy in the said writ petition and present writ petitions at hand are same. The learned counsel appearing for the State has also fairly conceded this fact that the controversy is covered by the said Judgment passed in Writ Petition No.4035 of 2001. The writ petition lacks merit as held by the learned Single Judge and, hence, these writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 4037 of 2001 and writ petition No. 4034 of 2001 are dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 18.8.1992 passed in Writ Petition No.4037 of 2001 stands vacated. All pending applications stands disposed of accordingly. Dated: 21.11.2008 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY