The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 restricts the right of appeal under Section 331 to the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC at the time of its incorporation, irrespective of subsequent amendments.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for peruse the record of the courts below and be further pleased to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and orders contained in Annexures 10.

(ii) Cost of the petition together with such alternate or additional relief as the Hon’ble court may deem fit proper be also awarded to the petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.1998 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Pargana Adhikari Nainital in Suit No.22/210 of 1991-92 (Annexure No.18 to the writ petition), the judgment dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure No.19 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Z.A. Appeal No.69/51 of 1998-99 (New No.78(99-2000), the judgment dated passed by the second appellate court of Additional Chief Revneue Commissioner in Second Appeal No.5/2001-02 “Chander Singh vs. Durga Singh” and S.A. No.6/2001-02 “Durga Singh vs. Chander Singh” (Annexure No.20 to the writ petition).”

2. Facts in brief are that one Mr. Heera Singh filed a suit for ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “The Act, 1950”) against the present petitioner in the court of respondent no.5 i.e. Assistant Collector, Haldwani, District Nainital, on the basis of sale deeds dated 28.08.1971, 05.06.1974, 21.01.1986. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, respondent no.5 decreed the said suit in favour of Mr. Heera Singh and against the present petitioner vide judgment and order dated 28.12.1998. During the pendency of trial before the court of Assistant Collector, Heera Singh died and respondent nos.6 to 9 being his LRs were substituted on his behalf. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed Z.A. Appeal No.69/51 of 1998-99 (78 of 1999-2000) Chandra Singh vs. Durga Singh & others, in the court of Additional Commissioner (Nyay) Kumaon Mandal, Nainital which was also dismissed by order dated 28.08.2001. But, a remand order was also passed for considering the plea of adverse possession which was raised for the first time in the said appeal. Both the parties filed second appeal against the order of appellate court with S.A. No.5 of 2001-02 (petitioner’s appeal) and S.A. No.6 of 2001-02 (respondents’/defendants’ appeal). The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed again vide order dated 28.08.2002. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the initial suit which was filed in the trial court was vague as the original plaintiff did not disclose the basis on which he claimed Bhoomidhari rights over the land, however, he filed alleged sale deeds dated 20.08.1971 (sic 28.08.1971), 05.06.1974, 21.01.1986 which although have not been proved but the sale deeds dated 20.08.1971 (sic 28.08.1971) & 05.06.1974 are not in dispute, however, sale-deed dated 21.01.1986 is disputed. He further submits that the bare perusal of the aforesaid two sale deeds clearly show that the original plaintiff was owner of the land below the line AA, BA, SA, DA but he very cleverly instead of specifying that he is claiming land of Plot Nos.1233 and 1235 both below the line AA, BA, SA, DA deliberately claimed ownership even on the plots above the aforesaid line. He also submits that the sale deed dated 21.01.1986 was never proved and is also the basis of the suit, he submits that Shri Heera Singh was alive on the date of evidence, but he did not get himself examined and moreover no transfero