The main legal point established is that the petitioners had perfected their rights by adverse possession before the date of vesting and became hereditary tenants under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, entitling them to protection from eviction.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 14-6-1985 (Annexure 4) to the writ petition and 30-9-1978 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent no. 2 and Respondent no. 1 respectively. By the order dated 30-9-1978, the Competent Authority declared irrigated land measuring 12-35 Hectares as surplus vacant land under the provisions of U.P. Imposition on Land Holdings Act 1960 (for short the Act). The appeal preferred by tile petitioner before the appellate court too was dismissed by the impugned order dated 14-6-1985 by the Additional District Judge, Nainital.

2. For a just decision of the case, a reference to the brief facts are necessary. Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was issued to the original tenure holder Laxmi Lal. He did not file any objection before the Prescribed Authority and the land in question was declared surplus vacant land, which is situate in village Haripur, Tahsil Kaladhungi, district Nainital (as prevailing at that time). In the proceedings objections were filed before the Prescribed Authority alleging that they were in adverse possession over the surplus land of plots comprised in the hading of Laxmi Lal thereby perfected their title to the land in question as tenure holder, therefore, the plots in question were not to be considered as part of the holding of original tenure holder. The appellants including the present petitioners went up in appeal before the appellate court and the case was ultimately remanded vide order dated 12-3-1977. After remand Prescribed Authority again rejected the objections of the petitionar-appellants vide judgment and order dated 30-9-1978 thereby holding that the rights of the objectors had not been declared and they have not perfected their right and title by adverse possession. Aggrieved, appeals were preferred before the I Additional District Judge, which were registered as Ceiling Appeal Nos. 232 of 1978, Fakir Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Ceiling Appeal No. 233 of 1978 Sardara Singh Vs. State of U.P. which too were dismissed by judgment and order dated 11-12-1979. The learned Additional District Judge held that the appellants were in possession over disputed plots from 1375 Fasli onwards, but they were not entitled to any relief having not perfected their title to the plots before 8-6-1973, as after coming into force of the Z.A. and L.R. Act the limitation was 12 years. Aggrieved, the petitioners/appellants went up in Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court and the petition filed by the petitioners was registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1227 of 1980. The writ petition was decided along with CMWP No. 975 of 1980 vide judgment dated 12-12-1983. The judgment and order dated 11-12-1979 passed by the Appellate Court in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 231, 232 and 234 of 1978 was quashed and the appeals were remanded to the Additional District Judge Nainital for decision afresh.

3. After remand of the appeals, cases were heard afresh as per directions of the High Court. The Appellate Court with respect of the Appeal preferred by the present petitioners observed that the petitioners were recorded on the land in question in 1375 Fasli. The period of three years ended in 1378 Fasli, but before expiry of this period of three years, the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act became applicable on 1-7-1969, which corresponds to 1377 Fasali. Accordingly, it was found that the appellants could not perfect their title over the said plots. The learned Appellate Court on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the Fakir Singh was recorded on the said land in 1375 ,Fasli, 1376 Fasli, 1380 Fasli, 1382 and 1383 Fasli. It was also found that appellant Sardar Singh was also recorded during the years 1375 E, 1376 E, 1380 E, 1381 F. and 1382 Fasli. Learned appellate court further observed that in the remarks column of the Khasara on record, the petitioners were recorded as tres