JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)

Before venturing into the vitalities of the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the parties to the writ petition, it becomes essential for this Court to precisely deal with the factual backdrop under which the present writ petition has arisen. The facts of the case are that the property, which is a subject matter of consideration in the proceedings under Section 229B, i.e. in a Suit for declaration of title under the Zamindari Abolition Act of 1950, constituted of Khasra No. 118B having an area of 1.455 hectares, Khasra No. 113 having an area of 1.657 hectares and Khasra No. 118A having an area of 0.051 hectares, that means total area in dispute would be 3.163 hectares, which was lying in village Jogipura, Tehsil Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Hereinafter the property described aforesaid would be called as the property in dispute.

2. Admittedly, the parties to the writ petition or in the proceedings of the Suit for declaration of right have a following common family tree, i.e. one Mr. Mohrari Ram was succeeded by his three sons Dharam Chandra, Darshan Ram and Hakam Chandra. The eldest son Dharam Chand was succeeded by three sons Hukum Chand, Milkha Ram and Kashmir Chand (the plaintiff to the Suit under Section 229 B). Since the successors of Darshan Ram are not the parties to the proceedings, hence, the details are not being discussed hereunder. The third son Hakam Chand, who was defendant no. 3 to the Suit, is said to have met with the sad demise on 04.01.2012 and he was succeeded by Parmeshwari Bai and Sandeep Kumar, who are the defendants/petitioners to the present writ petition.

3. Although in the connected writ petition the factual controversy in Writ Petition No. 521 of 2015 ‘Darshan Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others' involves identical facts and consideration of the same preposition of law. Hence, they are being decided together. Here in this writ petition only distinction is the claim of right by the petitioner, who too belongs to the same family clan.

4. These are two writ petitions involving a common question of law and with a slight deviation in facts, though the claim of declaration of rights in relation to the property (which is different) in both the writ petitions flows from the same family clan and blood relations as detailed in the judgment. The only distinction in Writ Petition No. 521 of 2015 ‘Darshan Ram vs. State of U.P.' is that he too happens to be the second son of Mohrari Ram, who too claims protection of his right of declaration of ownership and title in relation to a different set of property, over which the title was claimed by another son of Mr. Dharam Chandra namely Milakhraj in relation to the property described in the plaint as Khasra No. 75A/0-519 hectares, 75B/1-D12 hectare Khasra No. 77/2/0 area 0.063 hectares, i.e. having a total area of 2.787 hectares over which the plaintiff claim of declaration of title as Shreni 1ka Kashtkar was based on adverse possession claiming to be yet again based on creation of lease hold rights for cultivation created for a period of one year. Rest of the principle of law and facts are common in both the cases. Hence, they are being dealt together.

5. As per the plaint allegations, it was contended by the plaintiff/respondent no. 3 of Writ Petition No. 520 of 2015, who belonged to the same family clan being son of Dharam Chandra and who are the heirs having their source of descendants from common ancestor Mohrari Ram being son of Dharam Chandra contended that the property in question was handed over to him for agricultural activities by his predecessors and since he has continued to utilize the same for cultivation purposes for a period of over more than 20 years, he would be acquiring his right to be declared as a Bhumidhar, i.e. of Class Shreni 1ka as defined under Section 129 of the Zamindari Abolition Act on the basis of adverse possession. Meaning thereby, the facts which stands admitted by t