The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of adverse possession requires fulfillment of essential ingredients, including animus possidendi, continuity of possession, and fulfillment of the statutory period.

JUDGMENT :

Lok Pal Singh, J.

By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Board of Revenue, as also the judgment dated 06.01.2014, passed by Assistant Collector, First Class.

2) Brief facts of the case are that the land situated in Village Pappersaily, Tehsil and District Almora in Khata no. 1 Khasra no. 128 to 130, 132, 134 to 206, 208 to 216 and 217, total measuring 1.705 hectare was initially recorded in the name of American Methodist Mission (respondent no. 2 herein), since long. Said land was leased to one Mr. George Naderer by its true owner respondent no. 2 by way of a lease deed in the year 1976 for a period of 20 years which was to expire in the year 1996. At the time of granting lease deed, the possession of the aforesaid land was also handed over to the lessee. In pursuance of said lease deed, Mr. George Naderer came in possession of the said land and started residing in a house called “Deodars” along with outhouses in the leased premises allotted vide the same lease deed. Consequent to the grant of lease in favoaur of Mr. George Naderer, possession was delivered to the lessee along with structures standing thereon. Mr. Naderer due to his weak health requested the petitioner through letter dated 16.07.1971 to live with him. Petitioner accepted said request and started residing with Mr. Naderer since then. Petitioner continuously resided with Naderer family till the death of Mr. Naderer in the year 1990 and thereafter till the death of Mrs. Naderer in the year 1993. During her lifetime, Mr. Naderer executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing all her belongings. After her death in the year 1993, petitioner applied for a letter of administration before competent court at Almora, which was accordingly granted in his favour. In execution of the Will, the leased property and belongings left by Naderers were handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner came in full, actual, physical and independent possession of the said property without there being any interruption at the hands of true owner. The American Methodist Mission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mission’) filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner, being Civil Suit no. 20 of 1993. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora on 29.07.1997.

3) After the right of the petitioner over the property had matured, the petitioner filed a suit, being Revenue Suit no. 54/2005-06, under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the year 2006 before Assistant Collector, Bara Mandal, Almora seeking declaration of his bhumidhari rights on the basis of long, uninterrupted, adverse possession over the property in question. Notices were sent to the American Methodist Church Mission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mission’), who filed its written statement initially admitting the facts of the case. Later on, the admissions were withdrawn by filing an application for amendment. During the pendency of the suit, respondent no. 4 (Executive Board, Board of Methodist Church in India), who has nothing to do with the property of the Mission, without title, right and authority sold the said property to respondent nos. 5 and 6 vide sale deed dated 19.01.2009. When the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent sale executed by respondent no. 4 claiming itself to be owner of property of respondent no. 2, the petitioner and other affected persons filed their objection in mutation proceedings. Learned Mutation Court/Tehsildar, Almora rejected the objections of the petitioner and other objectors and passed the order of mutation in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Against the order of mutation, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Almora, which too was dismissed. Against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner file