Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. WRIT PETITION NO.5343 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No.28491 of 1995) Smt.Prasandi …….. Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others. …….. Respondents Sri Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M.Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4. …………………. Date: June 16, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 06.03.1995 passed by respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Second appeal No. 97 of 1993-94 (Hardwar), State of U.P. & Gaon Sabha versus Smt.Prasandi. 2. During the pendency of writ petition the petitioner died. Substitution application was filed by her adopted son Vishal Kumar, which was numbered as 3557/2007. The said application was allowed by this Court on 12.12.2007. 3 The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt.Prasandi filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act on the ground of adverse possession. It was stated that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. She is landless and, therefore, entitled for benefit under Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was also alleged that proceedings under Section 122-B were initiated earlier and her occupation on the disputed land was recognized before 30th June, 1985. The Assistant Collector disbelieved the claim of the petitioner from 30.06.1985 and dismissed the suit. 4. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Hardwar dated 05.01.1994 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner came to conclusion that it has been proved from the evidence that the petitioner is in possession from 30.06.1985. She is landless scheduled caste labourer and she has accrued the rights on the disputed land. He allowed the appeal of the appellant, the petitioner in the present writ petition and set aside the order of court below dated 05.01.1994. 5. The State and Gaon Sabha filed the appeal against the order of Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue recorded its finding that the judgment passed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal is contrary to the evidence and set aside the said judgment and allowed the appeal confirming the finding given by the Assistant Collector regarding possession on the disputed land. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, the State and Gaon Sabha has come up in the present writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the court below. The Board of Revenue has recorded its finding that the land is recorded as Johar (pond) and the land is of public utility in which tenurial rights will not accrue. The Assistant Collector specifically recorded his finding that the petitioner could not prove her possession before 30.06.1985. The findings recorded by the Assistant Collector are based on evidence on record. There is no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector as well as Board of Revenue. It is clear from the evidence that the petitioner has not perfected her right under Sec. 122 (4-F) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act. 8. In view of above, I find no force in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is affirmed. The Collector, Hardwar is directed to take over the possession from the petitioner. (P.C.Verma,J.) 16.06.2008 P.Singh