Judgment : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition arises out of the suits filed by the respondents against the present petitioners way-back in the year 1979 under Section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There were two suits filed by the respondents against the present petitioners, who were the defendant in the said suits. The first suit being Suit No. 22/6 of 1979-80 was for ejectment and possession on the property regarding area of land comprising 0.11 acre at khasra no. 348 and the second suit being Suit No. 22/4 of 1980-81 was regarding the land measuring 0.02 acre at khasra no. 348 which was filed before the Assistant Collector, First Class, Kashipur. The plaintiffs/respondents claim rights on the said land on the basis of recorded revenue entries. The suits of the plaintiffs/respondents were dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Commissioner, Kumaon Division. The Appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. The present petitioners being defendants in the said suit filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 31.8.1995. 2. It must be stated that in the revenue matters, the last court of appeal is the Board of Revenue which had pronounced a judgment in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/petitioner vide order dated 31.8.1995. 3. Consequently, the petitioners moved a review application being Review Application No. 30 of 1995-96. This review petition was dismissed on 17.1.1996. Subsequently thereafter, a restoration application being Restoration Application No. 57 of 1996 was field by the present petitioners on 29.1.1996 to set aside the order dated 17.1.1996 which was dismissed in default on 16.12.1996. Against the order dated 16.12.1996 another Restoration Application was filed being Restoration Application No. 26/1997 by the petitioners which was again dismissed in default on 10.3.1997. Thereafter against the order dated 10.3.1997, a third restoration application was filed which was dismissed on 18.8.1997. Thereafter, the petitioners kept on filing 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th restoration application which was dismissed again on 26.3.1999, 30.10.2000, 25.5.2002 and 26.8.2002 respectively. 4. Thereafter against the order dated 10.3.1997, a third restoration application was filed which was dismissed on 18.8.1997. Thereafter, the petitioners kept on filing 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th restoration application which was dismissed again on 26.3.1999, 30.10.2000, 25.5.2002 and 26.8.2002 respectively. 4. It must be stated here though that the new State of Uttarakhand was created on 9.11.2000 by an Act of Parliament and subsequently in view of Section 91 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, the matter i.e. the review application stood transferred to the Court of Chief Revenue Commissioner in Uttarakhand, as the powers of the Board of Revenue were given to the Chief Revenue Commissioner in Uttarakhand which was a competent authority/forum to decide such matters as were being decided by the Board of Revenue in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the two orders dated 25.5.2002 and 26.8.2002 have been passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. Now, after all these orders, the fact remains that the second appeal stood dismissed as far back on 31.8.1995, yet the petitioner filed for the first time a Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 383 of 2003 pertaining to land 0.11 acre and another petition being Writ Petition No. 386 of 2003 pertaining to land 0.02 acre. The Writ Petition No. 386 of 2003 was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.12.2006 and the matter came to an end as far as that writ petition was concerned which pertained to the land 0.02 acre. Regarding other writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 383 of 2003, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition. The exact order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2006 while dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn reads as follows :- “The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file fresh petition. Allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is given to the petitioners to file fresh petition. Certified copy of impugned order be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner.” 5. Another fact which must be stated at this juncture that in Writ Petition No. 383 of 2003 all the petitioners had sought was for setting aside the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. Certified copy of impugned order be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner.” 5. Another fact which must be stated at this juncture that in Writ Petition No. 383 of 2003 all the petitioners had sought was for setting aside the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. There was no prayer to set aside the order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad and this is the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondents that even for the sake of argument, if the liberty was given to the petitioner the liberty would be only to the extent of filing the writ petition challenging the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. Nevertheless, after withdrawing the said writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the year 2007 with the following prayers : “1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad dated 31.8.1995 passed in second appeal no. 35 of 1987-88 “Balwant Singh and others v/s Krishan Kumar Nagar and others” (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). 2. To issue any other writ, order or direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.” 6. In this writ petition, the order dated 26.8.2002 was not challenged but all that was challenged was order dated 31.8.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 35 of 1987-88. Therefore the principle contention raised by the counsel for the private respondents Mr. M.S. Tyagi is that this writ petition is highly belated and no benefit of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.2006 can be given to the petitioner for the reasons already stated above. However, counsel for the petitioners Sri M.C. Bansal has vehemently urged that the Board of Revenue as well as the First Appellate Court have committed gross illegality which is apparent on the face of record and the matter be heard on its merit and may not be rejected on a technicality. However, counsel for the petitioners Sri M.C. Bansal has vehemently urged that the Board of Revenue as well as the First Appellate Court have committed gross illegality which is apparent on the face of record and the matter be heard on its merit and may not be rejected on a technicality. Therefore, purely in the interest of justice, considering the vehement plea raised by the counsel for the petitioners, the matter is being heard on merit. 7. Heard Mr. M.C. Bansal, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Chetan Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the private respondents. 8. Brief facts of the case are that there is a land being Khasra No. 348 at village Amritpur, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar having a total area of 0.13 acre. The case of the petitioners is that earlier the private respondents had filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners on a part of land at plot no. 348 comprising an area of 0.02 acre. According to them, they had given the land for a limited period to the petitioners to open a tea stall or hotel and they want them to be evicted which has not been done in ordinary course. The suit of the private respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal which was also dismissed and finally they filed a Second Appeal and the Second Appeal was also dismissed on 20.3.1979 with a liberty to raise the dispute before the Revenue Court as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction on that matter. Consequently, the respondents/plaintiffs filed two suits for eviction against the present petitioners under Section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. One suit being Suit No. 22/4 of 1980-81 was filed regarding an area comprising 0.02 acre and other suit being Suit No. 22/6 of 1979-80 was regarding an area comprising 0.11 acre. This distinction the respondents/plaintiffs had made and were constrained to file two suits as admittedly they have given 0.02 acre of land on lease to the defendants/petitioners from which they were not vacating. The adjacent land to that lease land was a land comprising of 0.11 acres on which the respondents had made encroachment and were, therefore, an unauthorized occupation on it, for which again possession was sought by the plaintiffs. Both these suits of the plaintiffs were dismissed. The adjacent land to that lease land was a land comprising of 0.11 acres on which the respondents had made encroachment and were, therefore, an unauthorized occupation on it, for which again possession was sought by the plaintiffs. Both these suits of the plaintiffs were dismissed. Aggrieved they filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division and the suit was decreed. The present petitioners being defendants in the said suit filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 31.8.1995. The matter is before this Court in writ petition. The brief background pertaining to the delay and everything has already been stated above, which need not be repeated. 9. At this juncture, it must also be clarified that the present writ petition only pertains to the land comprising an area 0.11 acre, as the other writ petition which was pertaining to the land comprising an area 0.02 acre has already been dismissed as withdrawn way-back in the year 2005, where no liberty was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition and in any case no other writ petition has been filed as yet. This writ petition is confined to the area 0.11 acre, i.e. for the area on which the petitioners have their possession and they claim right on it purely on the basis of adverse possession. 10. Whereas the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs on the said land was based on their recorded “bhumidhari” rights on the property, the petitioners contested these rights and raised a claim that they cannot be evicted from the said property as their rights have been crystallized on the said property on their being in “adverse possession” on the said property since 1960 i.e. 19 years prior to the claim raised by the plaintiffs/respondents. 11. The first appellate court and the second appellate court though have discarded this claim of the defendant/petitioners on the ground that during the consolidation proceedings in the said village which started in the year 1970 and came to an end in the year 1976, the petitioners made no effort to correct the entries in the revenue records nor they claimed any rights on the basis of adverse possession. The stand of the defendant/petitioners always was that they could not have done so and in support of their claim they had filed certain documents stating that that particular land was declared as an “Abadi” which was outside the purview of the consolidation proceedings. He had also annexed a certificate in order to show that since the land in dispute was outside the purview of the consolidation proceedings, entries could not have been corrected during the consolidation proceedings. Both the courts below have not relied on the said document as the certified copy of the said document was not produced before them and it was not taken as a primary evidence. 12. This Court has, therefore, to weigh the evidence produced by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in support of their case. The first document produced by the plaintiffs in support of their case is an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the year 1968 which was passed in correction of revenue records, whereby regarding the land in dispute, it was held that this land was wrongly recorded as a “Gram Sabha” land and it is actually the land of the private respondents and so declared as such. While doing so, the concerned authority had noted that on 0.02 acre of land, there is a possession of the present petitioners which was admittedly given by the private respondents to them on lease for opening a tea stall, etc. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the concerned authority i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate made an order that though the respondents were declared as “bhumidhars” of the said property, the present petitioners were shown as “category 9” which means that the present petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the private property which is presently a part of plot no. 348. Apart from this, there is nothing to support the case of the petitioners. This evidence which is in support of the case of the petitioners regarding the possession of the land is only regarding the part of land comprising area of 0.02 acre which was given admittedly to the petitioners on lease for opening a tea stall, which was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 386 of 2003, which stands dismissed as withdrawn. 13. 13. Regarding area 0.11 acre, no substantial piece of evidence was ever placed by the petitioners which could prove that they were in “adverse possession” of the said land. 14. A person who claims right on a land on the basis of adverse possession has an onerous task to prove the same before a Court of law. He is admittedly claiming right on a property which belongs to another, though claims these rights under a provision of law. The point, all the same, remains that no Court can grant equity to such a person, but on the other hand a Court must examine his claim under the strict law of evidence. The petitioners have miserably failed to prove their case on the basis of adverse possession. 15. No interference needs to be made by this Court on the order presently impugned. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.