STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH) versus MOHAN SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 12-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 686 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF 
UTTAR PRADESH) 
v. 
MOHAN SINGH & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6479 of 2012 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
C Act, 1951 - ss. 210 and 331(4) - Suit by respondent-plaintiff 
for their declaration as Bhumidhars being in adverse 
possession of the land - Suit dismissed on the ground that 
plaintiff could not obtain Bhumidhar right being a non':.tribe 
person, as the land belonged to a tribe - Appeal against the 
o order also dismissed - Second appeals u/s. 331(4) before 
Board of Revenue - Board allowed appeals and decreed the 
suit holding that plaintiffs perfected their title uls. 210 by 
continuous possession for 20 years - Writ petition by State 
dismissed - On appeal, plea interalia that order of the Board 
E was illegal as it failed to frame substantial question of law as 
per s. 331(4) and uls. 100(4) CPC as amended- Held: The 
Act was enacted prior to the amendment of s. 100 CPC 
whereby sub-section (4) was incorporated therein - Therefore, 
the unamended s. 100 CPC was incorporated ins. 331(4) -
F 
Thus the right of second appeal was limited to the grounds 
set out in the then existing s. 100 CPC -
The Board of 
Revenue has not examined the provisions of the land record, 
and whether the land belonged to the tribe - Therefore, the 
matter remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh 
G consideration - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
H 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam and 
Anr. (1998) 2SCC 467:1998 (1) SCR 254; Mahindra and 
Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 
686 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (PREVIOUSLY STATE OF 687 
UTTAR PRADESH) v. MOHAN SINGH 
529: 1979 (2) SCR 1038; Secretary of State of India in 
A 
Council v. Hindustan Co-operative lnsurace Society Ltd. 58 
I.A. 259; Ramswarup v. Munshi and Ors. (1963) 3 SCR 858; 
Boiani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1974) 2 SCC 777: 1975 
(2) SCR 138 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1998 (1) SCR 254 
Referred to 
Para 18 
1979 (2) SCR 1038 
Referred to 
Para 19 
58 I.A. 259 
Referred to 
Para 22 
1963 (3) SCR 858 
Referred to 
Para 23 
1975 (2) SCR 138 
Referred to 
Para 24 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 
6479 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2008 of the 
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (C) No. 
4037 of 2011. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 6480 and 6481 of 2012. 
Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma for the Appellant. 
Somnath Padhan, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai for 
the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Delay condoned. 
2. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
3. Heard learned counsel on either side. 
4. Respondents herein had filed a suit, being Revenue 
Case No. 22/45 Year 1989-90, before the Sub Divisional 
Magistrate/Assistant Collector (SOM), under Sectio;i 2298 of 
8 the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950 (for short 'U.P. Act') stating that they were in continuous 
cultivation and in possession of land measuring 0.515 hectare 
in Plot No. 137 of Khata No. 44 in village ltawa Tehsil Sitargunj, 
District Nainital, for over 20 years. Despite having adverse 
possession, their names had not been recorded as Bhumidars 
C in the Revenue Records and hence a declaration was sought 
for to that effect. 
5. The Court of the SOM, however, dismissed the suit vide 
judgment dated 19.03.1991 holding that the respondents could 
D not establish adverse and continuous possession over the 
disputed land and that the land in question belonged to Tharu 
tribe and the Bhumidar right could not be obtained by non-Tharu 
tribe persons. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents 
took up the matter in appeal before the Additional 
E Commissioner (Judicial), Kumaon Division, Nainital under 
Section 331 of the U.P. Act. 
6. The appeal was elaborately considered by the 
Additional Commissioner, on law as well as on facts, and he 
recorded a finding that the land in dispute belonged to original 
F 'Kashtkar' (tillers) of the land, members of Tharu tribe and on 
their land the respondents could not claim any Bhumidar rights. 
Further, it was also held that the adverse possession of the 
respondents for prescribed period before 3.6.1981 could not 
be proved .. Holding so, the appeal was dismissed vide 
G judgment dated 12.07.1991 and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.