The main legal point established in the judgment is that joint permissive possession with the consent of the recorded tenure holders can prevent ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners has challenged the judgments and orders dated 29-05-2002 and 13-06-2003, passed by Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Circuit Court Nainital, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, are that respondents no. 5,6 and 7 filed a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for ejectment of the petitioner and respondent no. 8. The said suit was numbered as Revenue Case No. 22/92 of 1979-80 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Kashipur, District- Nainltal. The petitioner and respondent no. 8 filed their written statement in said suit in which it was pleaded that mother of respondent no. 5, 6 and 7 agreed to sell the land in question and delivered possession on non payment of loan of Rs. 4,000/- in the year 1974. The Assistant Collector, Kashipur initially decreed the suit on 08-10-1992 against which petitioner preferred appeal no. 112 of 1994-95 which was allowed vide order dated 17-04-1997 and the case was remanded. After remand the Assistant Collector after hearing the parties this time dismissed the suit vide his order dated 25-09-2000 (copy Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Aggrieved by which respondents no. 5,6 and 7 preferred Z.A. appeal no. 6/23 of 2000-2001 before Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which was allowed vide his order dated 29-05-2002 (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Against said judgment, a Second Appeal no. 44 of 2002-2003 was filed by the petitioner, 'Which was dismissed on 13-06-2003 (copy Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by said Authority. Challenging both these orders, the present petition has been moved on the ground that the respondent no. 1 and 2 while passing the impugned orders, committed illegality by not treating .the documents executed by respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 in favour of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the authorities concerned have failed to appreciate the transfer of possession by the respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 themselves to the petitioner.

3. On behalf of the respondents no. 5,- 6 and 7, the respondent no. 7 has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the contesting respondents are the bhumidhars of the land in dispute which was illegally occupied by the petitioner without their consent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself has admitted possession of Shri Prem Singh (respondent no. 8) over the land in suit as such the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the same. It is further stated in his counter affidavit by respondent no. 7 that even if any agreement has taken place between Kishan Singh (respondent no. 5) and the petitioner, in transaction of loan of Rs. 4,000/-, it has 'not been specified if the land mentioned therein is plot no. 170/2. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that in the proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Criminal. Procedure, 1973, also the petitioner, Bhairav Dutt Joshi was not found in lawful physical possession of the land in dispute. Defending the impugned judgments and orders, it is stated that the claim of petitioner was rightly rejected by said courts. It is denied by the contesting respondents if Smt. Nandi Devi (mother of the contesting respondents) had transferred the land in suit to Prem Singh (respondent no. 8) through agreement dated 30-04-1970.

4. Respondent no. 8 has filed a separate counter affidavit in which he has supported the petitioner by stating that petitioner and the said answering respondent are in continuous joint permissive possession over the land in dispute since the lifetime of Shri Chatur Singh (father of respondents no. 5,6 and 7). It is further stated by the respondent no. 8, in his counter affidavit that after death of Shri Chatur Singh, against the consideration of Rs. 6,000/- which was paid through a cheque no. 03