IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1215 of 2007 (M/S) (Old No.28509 of 1992) State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital. ............Petitioner. Versus Sri Ujagar Singh son of Sri Sunder Singh, resident of Village Ittwa, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Nainital and four others. ..............Respondents. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-petitioner. Despite service there is no representation on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. Date: - December 11, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State-petitioner. Despite service there is no representation on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 5. By means of the writ petitioner, the petitioner has sough a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing the Judgment dated 29.1.1992 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) passed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad. Brief facts giving rise to the 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 by the respondent no. 1 claiming possession over the land in dispute for more than 20 years and having acquired rights by way of adverse possession under Section 210 of the Act. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector – respondent no. 4, and the respondent no. 1 was declared bhumidhar. Aggrieved by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer / Assistant Collector, the State preferred appeal no. 134 of 1991 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaun Division, Nainital which was allowed, vide Judgment dated 12.7.1991. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the appellate court, the respondent no. 1 preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, The Board of Revenue, vide its Judgment and order dated 29.1.1992, set aside the order dated 12.7.1991 of the appellate court and maintained the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same controversy was before this Court in Writ Petition No. (M/S) 4035 of 2001 (Old No. 28513 of 1992), State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital Vs. Malkeet Singh & others. The legal question was also the same, i.e. whether the respondent nos. 1 and 1-A had perfected their rights before 3.6.1981 and the amendment which was made by the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 with effect from 3.6.1981 shall be retrospective or prospective? The learned Single Judge has held “The said amendment shall operate prospectively and shall not affect the title of respondent no. 1 since the respondent no. 1 has perfected his title over the land in dispute much before the appointed day and, therefore, subsequent amendment would not at all affect his title.” The similar controversy is to be decided in the present writ petitions. I have perused the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue as well as in Writ Petition No.4035 of 2001 (Old No. 28513 of 1992), State of U.P. through Collector, Nainital and I am also of the view that the controversy in the said writ petition and present writ petitions at hand are same. The learned counsel appearing for the State has also fairly conceded this fact that the controversy is covered by the said Judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 4035 of 2001. The Judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The writ petition lacks merit as held by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this writ petition no. 1215 of 2007 is dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 18.8.1992 stand vacated. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) Dated: 11.12.2008 RMY