Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.631 of 2003 Pulam Lal & others ………… Petitioners Versus Additional Revenue Commissioner Uttaranchal, Dehradun and others. ………. Respondents ……………….. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Sri P.C.Jhingan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7. Date: Aug. 11,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned judgment and orders dated 04.04.2000, 02.04.2002 and 01.11.2002 passed by Assistant Collector, Barkot, (District- Uttarkashi), Additional Commissioner (Administration) Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal and Additional Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun respectively and to declare the petitioners as Bhumidhars over the land of Khasra Nos. 857, 859, 940, 993, 998 and 1047 of Khatauni Khata No.87 measuring 0.025 hectare, 0.026 hectare, 0.005 hectare, 0.010 hectare, 0.019 hectare and 0.011 hectare respectively situated at Village Chhatanga, Patti Barkot, Tehsil Barkot,District Uttarkashi. 2. The petitioners filed a revenue suit on 18.08.1998 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barkot, 2 District Uttarkashi under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for declaration of Bhumidhar over the land as narrated above on the ground that the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and father of respondent No.7 had sold the land in dispute to Shri Gunduru, father of petitioners after the sale consideration of Rs. 300.00 on 28.4.1971 and the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute since 29.06.1966. The respondents contested the suit and filed objection on the ground that the respondent Nos. 5 & 7 are joint owners of the land in dispute and also stated that the respondent No.5 knows to put his signature and thumb impression made in the receipt dated 28.04.1971 is not of the respondent No.5. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit of petitioners on 04.04.2000 giving the finding that the petitioners could not prove their case. 3. Against the said order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal which was also rejected vide order dated 02.04.2002. Thereafter petitioners filed second appeal in the Court of Additional Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in the writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The courts below have recorded the finding that the petitioners could not prove their adverse possession by way of evidence 3 adduced by them. This finding has been recorded after perusal of the revenue records as well as statement of the witnesses. The finding is based on the evidence led by the parties. Hence the matter is concluded by the finding of fact. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 11.08.2008 P.Singh