Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) of 963/2001 (Old No. 19949 of 1999) Dharm Singh ………Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and Others ……..Respondents Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 & 3. Sri K.S. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 6. 30 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the respondent no. 1/Board of Revenue, whereby the judgment and order dated 27.2.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Division, Nainital has been confirmed. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no.6, Deo Singh instituted a suit under Sections 229- B/ 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against late Sri Jai Singh and others, impleading the U.P. State and Gaon Sabha concerned as necessary parties, with the prayer that he be declared as Sirdar over the 1/2 share of the disputed holding. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial court on 26.4.1979. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred before the Additional commissioner, which was allowed vide the judgment and order dated 27.2.1991, Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.1999. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) that after the death of their father, Man Singh, the disputed land shall devolve upon his two sons, Jai Singh and Deo Singh, but to grab the share of Deo Singh, who was minor at that time, his elder brother Jai Singh and uncle Dungar Singh, got the land illegally mutated in their favour. The appellate court has correctly held that both the sons of deceased Man Singh i.e. Jai Singh and Deo Singh should have 1/2 share each over the disputed land. In this preliminary decree, the share has been determined which is perfectly correct in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial) has passed his judgment and order dated 27.2.1991 after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. As such, Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the second appeal vide its judgment and order dated 25.2.1999. 5. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. So far as partition is concerned, the same shall be effected after the final decree is drawn. While drawing the final decree, parties may settle the plots. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh