JUDGMENT

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

1. Since, both the writ petitions arise out of same cause of action, therefore, same are being decided by a common order for sake of brevity. WPMS No. 1754 of 2019 shall be considered as the leading case.

2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suyash Pant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner i.e. Dhokham Tibetan Foundation, claiming to be in possession of a piece of land, filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 212 of 2003 against the State of Uttarakhand before the Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court II, Dehradun. After hearing of the suit, the learned Addl. District Judge granted perpetual injunction against the State of Uttarakhand.

4. The State of Uttarakhand filed a first appeal bearing FA No. 64 of 2003 before this Court which set aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, assailed the order, passed by this Court setting aside the decree of perpetual injunction, in Civil Appeal No. 1332 of 2009 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.04.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the petitioner- Dokham Tibbat Foundation is in possession of the land having been granted under the provisions of U.P. Bhoodan Yagana Act, 1952, and, therefore, the State of Uttarakhand was injuncted from dispossessing the petitioner from the land without following the procedure established by law. Thereafter, respondent i.e. Shri S.C. Mathur filed O.S. No. 568 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun for perpetual injunction against the opposite party. He also filed an application for temporary injunction which is still pending. When the matter is pending before the Court below, the private respondent again initiated the proceeding under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as to the UPZA&LR Act) before the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Dehradun in dispute no. 11 of 2017-18.

6. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the private respondent that in O.S. No. 568 of 2005, the respondent specifically pleaded that he is in possession of the land since 15.05.1999 by virtue of an agreement to sale dated 03.03.1998, however, in the suit before the Revenue Authorities he claimed that out of those lands involved in this suit, he has acquired title by way of adverse possession under 14 acres of land, since, being in possession having a hostile animus to the title to the present petitioner since 15.05.1999. The respondent also applied for temporary injunction under Section 229D of the UPZA&LR Act. The temporary injunction was granted in favour of the private respondents. Such order was challenged before the Member, Board of Revenue, Garhwal, Dehradun bearing Revision No. 163 of 2018-19. The learned Member, Board of Revenue modified the order and asked both the parties to maintain status quo.

7. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the Dhokham Tibbetan Foundation in this case would argue that the plea of adverse possession has not been taken by the respondent in the original suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Dehradun in O.S. No. 568 of 2005 and will not make out a prima facie case of adverse possession in later application filed under Section 229 of UPZA&LR Act. He also contended that the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Dehradun is illegal, as under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order of injunction.

8. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, the learned counsel for the private respondent would argue that the property is different hence the plea taken by the respondent is different in two cases but he also contends that as per the provision of Section 229D of the UPZA&LR Act, the Revenue Authority has a jurisdiction to pass a temporary injunction. He wou