(1.) Before venturing into the vitalities of the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the parties to the writ petition, it becomes essential for this Court to precisely deal with the factual backdrop under which the present writ petition has arisen. The facts of the case are that the property, which is a subject matter of consideration in the proceedings under Section 229B, i.e. in a Suit for declaration of title under the Zamindari Abolition Act of 1950, constituted of Khasra No. 118B having an area of 1.455 hectares, Khasra No. 113 having an area of 1.657 hectares and Khasra No. 118A having an area of 0.051 hectares, that means total area in dispute would be 3.163 hectares, which was lying in village Jogipura, Tehsil Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Hereinafter the property described aforesaid would be called as the property in dispute.
(2.) Admittedly, the parties to the writ petition or in the proceedings of the Suit for declaration of right have a following common family tree, i.e. one Mr. Mohrari Ram was succeeded by his three sons Dharam Chandra, Darshan Ram and Hakam Chandra. The eldest son Dharam Chand was succeeded by three sons Hukum Chand, Milkha Ram and Kashmir Chand (the plaintiff to the Suit under Section 229 B). Since the successors of Darshan Ram are not the parties to the proceedings, hence, the details are not being discussed hereunder. The third son Hakam Chand, who was defendant no. 3 to the Suit, is said to have met with the sad demise on 4.01.2012 and he was succeeded by Parmeshwari Bai and Sandeep Kumar, who are the defendants/petitioners to the present writ petition.
(3.) Although in the connected writ petition the factual controversy in Writ Petition No. 521 of 2015 'Darshan Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others' involves identical facts and consideration of the same preposition of law. Hence, they are being decided together. Here in this writ petition only distinction is the claim of right by the petitioner, who too belongs to the same family clan.