2025:UHC:462 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 87 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 2. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged judgment & order dated 25.03.2011 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Laksar, District Haridwar in Suit No.57 of 2006, whereby his Declaratory Suit under Section 229-B of Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, was dismissed. He has also challenged the judgment & order dated 08.06.2022 and 27.11.2024 passed by First and Second Appellate Courts. 5. It transpires that petitioner filed a suit for declaring him to be a Bhumidhar, based on his continuous possession over the land in question before 03.06.1995, on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and since possession over the land in question dates back to 03.06.1995, therefore, in view of provision contained in Section 122-B(4- F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, he is entitled to be declared as a Bhumidhar. 6. Learned trial Court framed as many as 5 issues and issue no.2 was ‘whether plaintiff is entitled to benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the Act, in view of his 2025:UHC:462 possession over the land in question, which is prior to 03.06.1995’. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Petitioner challenged judgment & decree passed by trial Court in First Appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division. Petitioner, thereafter, filed Second Appeal, which too was dismissed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand. Thus, petitioner has lost from all the three Courts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that judgment rendered by learned trial Court is unsustainable and the finding on issue no.2, is unsustainable. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that no evidence whatsoever was led by the petitioner in support of his contention that he is in possession from a date prior to the cut off date indicated in Section 122-B(4-F), therefore, learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. 9. Perusal of the judgment rendered by learned trial Court reveals that there was no documentary evidence produced by petitioner regarding his possession from 03.06.1995. Petitioner had examined two witnesses in support of his case, namely, Rajpal and Chandrapal, however, both witnesses could not make any statement regarding the khasra number and the area of the land in question; those witnesses also could not make any statement regarding the date from which they had seen petitioner in possession of the land in question. Before the trial Court, Gram Pradhan, Smt. Pushpa, deposed that petitioner 2025:UHC:462 was not in possession before 2007. The Halka Patwari, who was also examined as witness, was posted in the concerned Halka only one year ago and he saw petitioner in possession over the land in question since the day he assumed charge in the concerned Halka. 10. It is admitted to petitioner that he was only 14 years of age in the year 1995, the day when he claims to have occupied Government land. From perusal of the judgment rendered by learned trial Court, it is revealed that learned trial Court has considered & discussed all relevant aspects, therefore, the said judgment cannot be said to be perverse. Learned First Appellate court and Second Appellate Court were therefore justified in not interfering with the judgment rendered by learned trial Court. 11. This Court, while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution, is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Courts below, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.” reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524. 12. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.01.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a13 1bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D 653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.10 14:36:54 +05'30'