PRADEEP KUMAR S/O RAM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, S/O LATE KISHAN CHANDRA; KAMAL KANT, S/O SRI RAJ KUMAR; STATE OF UTTARANCHAL; GRAM SABHA HIMMATPUR; ASSISTANT COLLECTOR; ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER; ADDITIONAL CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ to set aside the order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Class/S.D.O (Bhawar), Haldwani, District Nainital-respondent No.5 and order dated 13-1-2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital-respondent No.6 in appeal No. ¼ of 2004-2005 and order dated 15-07-2005 passed by respondent No.7-Additional Revenue Commissioner,(Circuit Court) Uttaranchal whereby the 229 D application for temporary injunction has been rejected by the Assistant Collector and order was confirmed by the appellate Court as well as Revisional Court. 2

(2.) I have perused the order dated 1-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) wherein it has been held that there is no entry of the plaintiff in the revenue record i.e. Khasra and merely on the basis of the Photostat copy of the i0 d0 24, which is not admissible in evidence. The temporary injunction cannot be granted and learned Assistant Collector has held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Since, the defendants are recorded tenure holders and subsequently purchasers are also recorded in the revenue record. The copy of the Khasra has been filed by the defendant before the Assistant Collector, there is no mention of the plaintiff possession in Khasra also as has been held by the Assistant Collector.

(3.) Against the order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner Kumaon Division, which was also dismissed on 13-1-2005 and it was observed that learned trial court has not committed any manifest error of law. Aggrieved by the order dated 13-1-2005 of Commissioner Kumaon Division, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court), Dehradun. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner after hearing the parties vide order dated 15-3 07-2005 affirmed the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court and it has been held that the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner that the plaintiff/ revisionist has not filed the copy of the Khasra to indicate his adverse possession in support of his application for the temporary injunction and it was found that no prima-facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner/revisionist.