2025:UHC:533 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. 130 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.54 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 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 2025:UHC:533 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, Sureshpal 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 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. 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. Learned State Counsel has referred to a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Collector, Kanpur Dehat and others, decided on 09.03.2025 in C.M.W.P. No. 13191 of 2005, for contending that for 2025:UHC:533 claiming benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the claimant must show that he is in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his name is recorded in the revenue records prior to the cut-off date. He submits that petitioner’s possession is not recorded anywhere, therefore Courts below rejected his claim. Para 3 of the of the said judgment is extracted below:- “3. Whenever a new cut off date for conferring benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act is provided, people belonging to scheduled caste start claiming benefit of the said Section by creating evidence of prior possession. In view of this rampant mal-practice it is most essential that whenever benefit of aforesaid Sub-section (4-F) is claimed the claimant must show that he is in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his name is recorded in the revenue records prior to the cut off date or the proceedings for his ejectment must be pending since before the cut off date. If it is not so then no amount of evidence can be looked into in that regard. In most of the cases like the present ones Pradhans, Lekhpals and other Revenue authorities in collusion with claimants give wrong reports of possession of the claimants prior to the cut off date. Absolutely no reliance can be placed upon such reports. On the contrary disciplinary proceedings must be initiated against those Lekhpals and other revenue authorities who give such reports. Whenever any Lekhpal or any other revenue authority gives a report that a person is in unauthorized possession of Gaon Sabha land since long before the cut off date then action must be taken against him for his negligence to report the unauthorized occupation and initiate proceedings of eviction of that person before cut off date. Lekhpal is bound to give report of unauthorized occupation of any person over Gaon Sabha land promptly.” 12. 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. 13. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.01.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f 9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F 5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.01.13 11:10:09 +05'30' 2025:UHC:533