The principle of adverse possession and its application under the UPZA&LR Act, along with the requirement of locus standi for maintaining a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

LOK PAL SINGH, J.

1. By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26.03.2018, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 166/2017-18, Amandeep Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Almora and Others.

2. Facts, as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that father of the petitioner was in possession of agricultural land situated in Village Papersali, Tehsil and District Almora in Khasra no. 1, total measuring 93 Nali 12 Mutthi, out of 201 Nali, since the time of Britishers. After the death of his father, petitioner is in possession of the property in question for last more than 40 years and is cultivating the same. When some intruders tried to interfere in the possession of the petitioner, he filed a civil suit no. 28 of 1995, Puran Singh Vs State and another seeking permanent injunction and declaration. Aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff Puran Singh was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2007. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 27.08.2007, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2007, Puran Singh vs. State and Another before the District Judge, Almora. Said Civil Appeal too was dismissed. Aggrieved against the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2007, petitioner filed Second Appeal no. 39 of 2008 before this Court and succeeded in obtaining an interim order. Said Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and a restoration application filed for restoration of second appeal is still pending disposal.

3. Simultaneously, the petitioner instituted a Revenue Suit No. 9/03-2004, Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others on the basis of his long standing possession over the property in question under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act seeking declaration as owner of the said land. Said suit was dismissed by the revenue court vide judgment and order dated 02.03.2006. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal no. 87/2010-11/13/2010-11, under Section 331 of the UPZA&LR Act, which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2014. Petitioner assailed the order dated 11.02.2014, by filing Second Appeal No. Nil/2017-18, under Section 331(4) of the UPZA&LR Act, before the Board of Revenue Uttarakhand, Circuit Court, Naintial, which is pending adjudication.

4. It is averred that during the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, respondent nos. 2 and 3 fraudulently got executed a sale deed of the entire land of Khata no. 1, admeasuring 201 Nali, on 19.01.2009. A suit, being O.S. Suit No. 64 of 2003, American Methodist Mission vs. Puran Singh, seeking prohibitory injunction was decreed against the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Almora vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2012. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 60 of 2012, Pooran Singh vs. American Methodist Mission and Others, before this Court which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2015. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order dated 22.01.2015, passed by this Court in F.A. No. 60 of 2012. One Awadhesh Kumar Verma also preferred Special Leave Petitions Nos. 36208 of 2013, 36209 of 2013 and 6151 of 2015, respectively.

5. In the meantime, a Revenue Case no. 01/2015-16 was instituted by the State Government under Section 167 of UPZA&LR Act against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner was also made party to the said proceedings. In said suit, the sale deeds executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were declared null and void vide order dated 31.10.2017, passed by Assistant Collector (First Class), Sadar, Almora.

6. It is also averred that one Mr. Richard Wheeler, who was also in possession of some part of the property in dispute, also filed a suit, being Revenue Suit No. 54/2005-06, under S