4031 of 2001 and 4034 of 2001 etc.,
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Commissioner Judicial , Kumaon Division, Nainital under Section 331 of the U.P. Act.
State of Uttarakhand previously State of Uttar Pradesh , through the District Collector, preferred Writ Petition M S Nos.
Further, it was also stated that the appeals filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue were number properly companytested by the defendants.
The respondents again took up the matter in two separate appeals before the Board of Revenue under Section 331 4 of the U. P. Act and both the appeals were heard together.
137 of Khata No.
Despite having adverse possession, their names had number been recorded as Bhumidars in the Revenue Records and hence a declaration was sought for to that effect.
The respondents claimed that their rights had been perfected before the Act 20 of 1982 came into force by which the provision prohibiting the perfection of title on the land belonging to Scheduled Tribe was added.
22/45 Year 1989 90, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Assistant Collector SDM , under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for short U.P. Act stating that they were in companytinuous cultivation and in possession of land measuring 0.515 hectare in Plot No.
Learned companynsel also pointed out that Lakhpal, who was examined on behalf of the State, had also admitted the possession of the respondents and that the respondents had perfected their title under Section 210 of the U.P. Act before the incorporation of the proviso by Act 20 of 1982.
The Board of Revenue took the view that the Lakhpal, examined on behalf of the State, had admitted the possession of the respondents land and they were in companytinuous possession for over twenty years on the date of the institution of the suit and had perfected their title under Section 210 of the U.P. Act, before incorporation of the proviso by Act No.
The appeal was elaborately companysidered by the Additional Commissioner, on law as well as on facts, and he recorded a finding that the land in dispute belonged to original Kashtkar tillers of the land, members of Tharu tribe and on their land the respondents companyld number claim any Bhumidar rights.
Respondents herein had filed a suit, being Revenue Case No.
44 in village Itawa Tehsil Sitargunj, District Nainital, for over 20 years.
The Court of the SDM, however, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 19.03.1991 holding that the respondents companyld number establish adverse and companytinuous possession over the disputed land and that the land in question belonged to Tharu tribe and the Bhumidar right companyld number be obtained by number Tharu tribe persons.
Learned companynsel also pointed out that the High Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State.
Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned companynsel on either side.
Leave granted.
The Board of Revenue, therefore, allowed the appeals and decreed the suit vide its order dated 29.1.1992 and set aside the orders passed by the SDM and the Additional Commissioner.
Holding so, the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.07.1991 and the order of the SDM was companyfirmed.
20 of 1982.
before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
