IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 7244 OF 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 28512 of 1992) State of U.P. ………………..Petitioner Versus Sardool Singh and others. …….…………….Respondents. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.1.1992 (Annexure No. V to the writ petition) passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 Sardool Singh filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration that he is bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of Khasra 203 area 16 bigha 16 biswa and to direct the Tehsil Authorities to record his name. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the respondent that he is in possession over the plot in dispute since 1366 F and he acquired hereditary rights under the U.P. Tenancy Act and also acquired non-transferable rights as Bhumidhar when U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force on 1.7.1969. Against the suit, the petitioner filed a written statement, wherein it was stated that the land in dispute was recorded in Varg –4 and the plaintiff did not acquire any right. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional officer / Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Khatima dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 13.9.1988. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Kumaon, which was also dismissed on 28.1.1991 and the order of the trial court was upheld. 2 Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. The same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.1.1992, whereby the orders of the courts below were set aside. 3. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 29.1.1992. The Board of Revenue after relying upon the Khatauni 1373 Fasli in which the plaintiff’s possession is recorded with a duration of one year, has recorded a finding that even, if possession started in 1373 Fasli, he perfected his title in three years under Section 180(2) of U.P. Tenancy Act for being in possession for more than three years. It has further been observed that on the date of vesting, respondent no. 1 became Sirdar and now a bhumidhar and has observed that the land is not of public utility. It has further been observed in the judgment that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record nor the fact that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had come into force on 1.7.1969 and not on 1.7.1952. 4. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue as it has recorded the findings after taking relevant documents available on record and has rightly rejected the orders of the courts below. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour