- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharam Veer Sharma, assisted by Sri B. S. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) BY the present writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order- dated 13. 01. 2004 passed by Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal Circuit Court, Nainital in Revision No. 180 of 2003 Rana Pratap Singh Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur and others and in Revision No. 174 of 2003 Sunder and others Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Jaspur and others. Briefly stated, the respondents no. 1 to 9 of the Writ Petition No. 141 (MS) of 2004 preferred a Revenue Suit No. 22/29 under Section 229-B of the U. P Z. A and L. R. Act titled as Sunder and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and an other, before the Court of Assistant Col-lector (1st Class)/parganadhikari, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the declaration of their rights over Khasra No. 96 area 0. 437 Hectare and Khasra No. 102 Ga area 1. 214 hectare totaling 1. 651 hectares of Khata No. 144 of Village Jaspur Parti Uttam, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The State of Uttaranchal in col lusion with Sunder and others/plaintiffs contested the case and the suit of the plaintiffs was ultimately decreed vide judgment of the trial court dated 30. 01. 2003.
(3.) AFTER obtaining the decree from the trial Court, the plaintiffs have sold the land in question to one Sri Rana Pratap Singh, son of Sri Rana Bhupendra Singh, respondent no. 1 in Writ Petition No. 143 (MS) of 2004 resi dent of Rana Farm Village Vikrampur, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide registered sale deed dated 31. 03. 2003 for Rs. l0. 00. 000/ -. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in question is a State land vested with the petitioner vide notification dated llth August, 1954 and no person can acquire bhumidhari rights on the said land. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs deliberately did not implead the him as a party to the case in the court below fully knowing that the land falls within the limits of Nagar Palika and the land in question was never recorded in cat egory 9 as alleged by the said plaintiffs and no right can accrue to tenure hold ers on such land which is still recorded as talaab in revenue records in category 3 as talaab in revenue records wherein the plaintiffs were recorded as Asamis of the same and the Court below com pletely overlooked this aspect while de creeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 3 Create PDF with GO2pdf for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer This Software is licensed to: :-REg Copyright Capital Law Infotech According to the petitioner on 24. 05. 2003, when the pairokar of the petitioner obtained the copy of the con cerned Khasra, the petitioner came to know that the land in question has been entered in the names of the plain tiffs vide judgment of the trial Court dated 30. 01. 2003. The petitioner ob tained the copies of the judgment and other relevant documents on 28. 05. 2003 form the record room at Nainital and after obtaining the copies of the relevant judgment and other pa pers, the counsel for the petitioner at Kashipur advised the petitioner on 10. 06. 2003 to file an appeal against the judgment dated 30. 01. 2003 of the trial Court, in the Court of Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. Nagar Palika, thereafter has preferred the ap peal against the said order along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the land belong to Nagar Palika and he has not been impleaded, therefore, he be ing an aggrieved party has preferred the appeal before the Commissioner.;