IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 805of 2005 (M/S) Pradeep Kumar, S/o Ram Prakash Gupta, R/o Kamaluaganja, Narsingh Talla, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Raj Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Kishan Chandra, R/o K- 15-A, N.D.S.E., Part-1, New Delhi. 2. Kamal Kant, S/o Sri Raj Kumar, R/o K-15 A. N.D.S.E. , Part I, New Delhi. 3. State of Uttaranchal, through Collector, Nainital. 4. Gram Sabha Himmatpur, through its Sabha Pati. 5. The Assistant Collector, Ist Class/S.D.O (Bhawar), Haldwani, District Nainital. 6. The Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. 7. The Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, (Circuit Court), Uttaranchal. ..Respondents. Mr. Bharat Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.C.Pandey, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 3,5, 6 and 7. Date:- November 19, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ to set aside the order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class/S.D.O (Bhawar), Haldwani, District Nainital-respondent No.5 and order dated 13-1-2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital-respondent No.6 in appeal No. ¼ of 2004-2005 and order dated 15-07-2005 passed by respondent No.7-Additional Revenue Commissioner,(Circuit Court) Uttaranchal whereby the 229 D application for temporary injunction has been rejected by the Assistant Collector and order was confirmed by the appellate Court as well as Revisional Court. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the case that the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration of his right under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. During the pendency of the suit he has also filed application 229 D of the said act for temporary injunction wherein it was prayed that direction be given to the parties to maintain status quo and not to alienate or mortgage the property. The defendants be also restrained not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. I have perused the order dated 1-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) wherein it has been held that there is no entry of the plaintiff in the revenue record i.e. Khasra and merely on the basis of the Photostat copy of the i0 d0 24, which is not admissible in evidence. The temporary injunction cannot be granted and learned Assistant Collector has held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Since, the defendants are recorded tenure holders and subsequently purchasers are also recorded in the revenue record. The copy of the Khasra has been filed by the defendant before the Assistant Collector, there is no mention of the plaintiff possession in Khasra also as has been held by the Assistant Collector. Against the order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Kumaon Division, which was also dismissed on 13-1-2005 and it was observed that learned trial court has not committed any manifest error of law. Aggrieved by the order dated 13-1-2005 of Commissioner Kumaon Division, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court), Dehradun. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner after hearing the parties vide order dated 15- 3 07-2005 affirmed the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court and it has been held that the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner that the plaintiff/ revisionist has not filed the copy of the Khasra to indicate his adverse possession in support of his application for the temporary injunction and it was found that no prima-facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner/revisionist. The Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner confirmed the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court after hearing the parties. Perused the impugned judgment I find since there is no entry of adverse possession shown in Khasra, which was filed by the defendant before the trial court and petitioner failed to establish his case by filing the khasra for 12 years. At the time of hearing of the application only Photostat of i0d0 24 was filed and it was also doubted by the trial court and it has been held that the petitioner- plaintiff could not make out the prima facie case in his favour. The suit is pending. The order of rejection of temporary injunction by the trial court does not suffer form any manifest error of law. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to decide the Revenue suit No. 22 of 2003, under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act expeditiously as far as possible on merit after giving opportunity to adduce evidence and hearing to the parties. (B.S. Verma, J.) 19.11.2009 MK