Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2826
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
NEETU – Appellant
Versus
GRAM SABHA KANHEWALI RAISING PARGANA GORDHANPUR TEHSIL LAKSAR DISTT HARIDWAR – Respondent
WPMS 87 / 2025
SL. N o.
D a t e
Office N ot e s, r e por t s, or de r s or pr oce e dings or dir e ct ions a nd Re gist r a r ’s or de r w it h Signa t ur e s
COURT’S OR JUD GE’S ORD ERS
6 H 5 4 W PM S N o. 8 7 of 2 0 2 5 on ’ble M a n oj Ku m a r Tiw a r i, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. Bhargava, learned 2. Ms. Anj ali counsel for respondent no. 1. Mr. Raj esh Pandey, learned 3. St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand / respondent no. 2. By m eans of t his writ pet it ion, . pet it ioner has challenged j udgm ent & order dat ed 25.03.2011 passed by Assist ant Collect or, I st Class, Laksar, Dist rict Haridwar in Suit No.57 of 2006, whereby his Declarat ory Suit under Sect ion 229- B of Zam indari Abolit ion & Land Reform s Act , was dism issed. He has also challenged t he j udgm ent & order dat ed 08.06.2022 and 27.11.2024 passed by First and Second Appellat e Court s. I t t ranspires t hat pet it ioner filed a . suit for declaring him t o be a Bhum idhar, based on his cont inuous possession over t he land in quest ion before 03.06.1995, on t he ground t hat he belongs t o Scheduled Cast e and since possession over t he land in quest ion dat es back t o 03.06.1995, t herefore, in view of provision cont ained in Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act , 1950, he is ent it led t o be declared as a Bhum idhar. . Learned t rial Court fram ed as m any as 5 issues and issue no.2 was ‘whet her plaint iff is ent it led t o benefit of Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) of t he Act , in view of his
7 9 possession over t he land in quest ion, which is prior t o 03.06.1995’. Learned t rial Court dism issed t he suit . Pet it ioner challenged j udgm ent & decree passed by t rial Court in First Appeal, which was dism issed by learned Addit ional Com m issioner, Garhwal Division. Pet it ioner, t hereaft er, filed Second Appeal, which t oo was dism issed by Board of Revenue, Ut t arakhand. Thus, pet it ioner has lost from all t he t hree Court s. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner . subm it s t hat j udgm ent rendered by learned t rial Court is unsust ainable and t he finding on issue no.2, is unsust ainable. Per cont ra, learned St at e Counsel 8. subm it s t hat no evidence what soever was led by t he pet it ioner in support of his cont ent ion t hat he is in possession from a dat e prior t o t he cut off dat e indicat ed in Sect ion 122- B( 4- F) , t herefore, learned t rial Court right ly dism issed t he suit . . Perusal of t he j udgm ent rendered by learned t rial Court reveals t hat t here was no docum ent ary evidence produced by pet it ioner regarding his possession from 03.06.1995. Pet it ioner had exam ined t wo wit nesses in support of his case, nam ely, Raj pal and Chandrapal, however, bot h wit nesses could not m ake any st at em ent regarding t he khasra num ber and t he area of t he land in quest ion; t hose wit nesses also could not m ake any st at em ent regarding t he dat e from which t hey had seen pet it ioner in possession of t he land in quest ion. Before t he t rial Court , Gram Pradhan, Sm t . Pushpa, deposed t hat pet it ioner
1 1 1 1 was not in possession before 2007. The Halka Pat wari, who was also exam ined as wit ness, was post ed in t he concerned Halka only one year ago and he saw pet it ioner in possession over t he land in quest ion since t he day he assum ed charge in t he concerned Halka. I t is adm it t ed t o pet it ion
