IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1168 (M/S) of 2007 (Old No.8724/1984) Sunder Lal and others …Petitioners Versus Board of Revenue and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Ms. Anjali Noliyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned brief holder for the respondents. Inspite of service of the notice, respondent no. 4 is not present. Respondent no. 4 is the plaintiff and filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short ‘the Act’) for declaration of his rights on the land in question. On the basis of the pleadings the petitioner contested the matter and contended that he and his forefathers were in cultivatory possession before the Act came into existence. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed as to whether the plaintiff was a Sirdar or a Bhumidhar on the land in question, and, as to whether the forefathers of the plaintiff were given the land to cultivate before the Zamindari. The trial court as well as the first appellate court gave conclusive findings of fact to the effect that the plaintiff could not prove his case and that, the defendant was in cultivatory possession. The plaintiff filed the Second Appeal which was allowed by an order dated 20th March, 1984 and the matter was remitted again to the trial court to decide the matter afresh on the 2 basis of reframing of issue no. 1. The Board of Revenue reframed issue no. 1 as under: (i) Whether the plaintiff was Sir holder before vesting and became Bhumidhar after vesting, if so, its effect? (ii) Whether the plaintiff acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession, in case the defendant is found to have become Sirdar after vesting? In my opinion, the Board of Revenue committed an error in reframing issue no. 1 in two parts. The issue no. 1 which was framed by the trial court was wide enough to include within its fold the issue so reframed by the Board of Revenue and consequently the Board of Revenue was competent enough to give a finding on the said issues which had already been discussed and decided by the trial court. In the opinion of the Court, the Board of Revenue has abdicated its power and has unnecessarily remitted the matter to the trial court for a decision afresh. The Court is of the opinion that the Board of Revenue was competent to decide the matter as required under Order 41 Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter on merits. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 30-08-2010 Salim/