COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 4035/2001 (Old No. 28513/1992) State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital ………Petitioner Versus Malkeet Singh & Others ……….Respondents Sri Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the State/petitioner. Sri D.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.S. Sammal, Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 7 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 29.1.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue, which is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 2. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to present writ petition 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 the respondent no. 1, Malkeet Singh for declaration of Bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute claiming possession for more than 20 years and thus having acquired rights by was of adverse possession under Section 210 of the Act. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, 1st Class vide judgment and order dated 26.3.1991 and respondent no. 1 was declared Bhumidar, Class-II. 3. State filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.3.1991 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Division, Nainital, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.7.1991 holding that the recorded tenure-holders were “THARU” who belong to Schedule Tribe and in view of the amendment made under Section 210 of the Act, no right could be perfected by adverse possession. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner, respondent no. 1 preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment and order dated 29.1.1992 allowed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. The main ground of challenge is that Board of Revenue ignored the amendment made in Section 210 of the Act and as such no right could be perfected by adverse possession as the recorded tenure-holders belong to Schedule Tribe. I do not find any force in the submission put forth on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The proviso in Section 210 of the Act prohibiting the perfection of title in respect of the land held by a Bhumidhar or asami belonging to Schedule Tribe was appended by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from 3.6.1981. The Trial Court had already recorded a finding of fact that the possession of the respondent no. 1 stated about 20 years before filing the suit before the Trial Court and as such rights had perfected before 3.6.1981. The said amendment shall operate prospectively and shall not affect the title of the respondent no. 1. Since the respondent no. 1 had perfected his title over the land in dispute much before the appointed day and, therefore, subsequent amendment would not at all affect his title. 7. The impugned order has been passed after proper and exhaustive examination of the matter and in correct perspective of law. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on evidence and revenue records and, therefore, the Board of Revenue rightly affirmed the order of the Trial Court. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and it requires no interference by this Court. 8. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 7.8.2008 Prabodh