2025:UHC:3723 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1168/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. A.M. Shaklani, learned counsel for the private respondent. 4. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of UPZA&LR Act, 1950 which was dismissed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Class, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide judgment dated 25.07.1998. Petitioner thereafter filed first appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division vide judgment dated 17.05.1999. The second appeal filed by the petitioner, however, was allowed by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 10.06.2004. 5. Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur challenged the said judgment passed in second appeal in a writ petition, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to Board of Revenue, with a direction to frame legal question and decide the second appeal afresh. The Board of Revenue now has dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment dated 23.09.2024. Petitioner has thus, challenged the judgment and order passed by learned trial court, first appellate court as well as second appellate court in this writ petition. 2025:UHC:3723 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon remand of the matter, although Board of Revenue framed three legal questions, however, there is no discussion as to how those questions were dealt with by the second appellate court. Thus, he submits that this is fit case for remand of the matter. 7. Learned State Counsel, per contra, has taken the Court to page 34 & 35 of the writ petition for contending that learned second appellate court has not only discussed the legal questions framed by it, but it has also given its reasoning for deciding those legal questions against the petitioner. Thus, he submits that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the judgment rendered by learned second appellate court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner filed a declaratory suit, which was numbered as Revenue Suit No. 22/144 of 1996-97; petitioner took three pleas for claiming title, (i) the land in question belongs to his forefather and his name was wrongly entered in Category-IV, (ii) petitioner is continuing in possession over the land in dispute since more than last 50 years, and (iii) there was a groove over the land in question belonging to petitioner’s family, which was in existence since last more than 50 years; therefore he has perfected his title by adverse possession. 9. Learned State Counsel submits that the earliest document, filed by petitioner in support of his claim, is Khautani of 1368 Fasli, which correspond to the calendar year 1960-61, while the land in question was vested in Town Area 2025:UHC:3723 Committee, Jaspur vide notification dated 11.08.1954. Thus, he submits that learned trial court rightly dismissed the suit as petitioner failed to produce any evidence that the groove was standing over the land in question, before 1960. He further submits that the plea taken by petitioner, for claiming declaration, was mutually destructive, as on the one hand, he was claiming to be the owner of the land in question and on the other hand, he was claiming to be in adverse possession over the land of Nagar Palika. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case in which interference under Article 227 of the Constitution would be warranted. Law is well settled that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit as a court of appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524. Para 7 of the said judgment is extracted below:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 2025:UHC:3723 11. Since all the three courts have consistently held that petitioner has not been able to make out a case for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in his favour, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with such concurrent finding in a writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.05.2025 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08 d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F 4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.05.13 18:47:02 -07'00' 2025:UHC:3723