JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By means of this civil revision, titled above, the order dated 2.8.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nainital adjudicating the issue no. 3 in Original Suit No. 8/2006, Intezar Hussain v. State, is under challenge. The issue was framed to the effect whether the suit launched by the plaintiff is barred by Section 331 of the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. Before appreciating the legality of the impugned order, the Court would like to narrate, in brief, the history of the controversy. 2. This dispute pertains to the land, which the State claims in the nature of Nazul Bhukhand Settlement No. 632 to 636 mentioned in Serial No. 258 of the Nazul Register of the Municipal Board/Notified Area measuring 64 Bigha 14 Bishwa situated at the outskirts of Haldwani on the road going to Bareilly. The State Government allotted such land to the Home Department for establishing the Police Station, Banfulpura; a Fire Station and a Mounted Police Force. So, after allotment, the Secretary of the Department of Urban Development (Government of Uttarakhand) issued the follow up letter to the Collector, Nainital to initiate the action of handing over the possession pursuant to the allotment indicated above. Objecting all these state of affairs, the petitioners Mr. Interzar Hussain and Mr. Nazakat Hussain filed a Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2005 (M/B), which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court including the Chief Justice vide the judgment dated 7.11.2005, wherein it was observed that the dispute seems to be a question of fact; so, the aggrieved party should approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the controversy. In addition to such observation, the Division Bench issued the following directions: “(i) The petitioners may file a proper representation, producing necessary documents to substantiate their claim, before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from today. (ii) If such a representation is filed by the petitioners, it shall be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law and the representation shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order as early as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. (ii) If such a representation is filed by the petitioners, it shall be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law and the representation shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order as early as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. (iii) Till the order passed by second respondent on the said representation is served on the petitioners and for a further period of two weeks, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the land in their possession. (iv) Till the matter is finally decided by the second respondent, the petitioners shall not raise any further constructions on the land in question. (v) If no representation is filed by the petitioners within two weeks from today as directed above or if the second respondent rejects the claim of the petitioners and no order is obtained by the petitioners from any competent Court staying their eviction within the period of two weeks from the date of service of the order on the petitioners, it will be open to the respondents to evict the petitioners from the land in question.” 3. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioners/revisionists moved a representation to the Secretary concerned, who rejected the representation of Mr. Intezar Hussain and his brother on 17.2.2006 after rendering them an opportunity of hearing. So, the petitioner instituted an Original Suit No. 8/2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in their favour and against the State Government directing it not to interfere in their peaceful possession over the land in question. The direction was also sought to restrain the State Government from evicting them from such land (garden and buildings). 4. The State Government resisted and filed its written statement, wherein, inter alia, a prima facie issue was formulated, which has been decided against the plaintiffs/revisionists by the impugned order. The direction was also sought to restrain the State Government from evicting them from such land (garden and buildings). 4. The State Government resisted and filed its written statement, wherein, inter alia, a prima facie issue was formulated, which has been decided against the plaintiffs/revisionists by the impugned order. Learned Civil Judge, relying on the judgment of this Court rendered in Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur v. Sooraj Singh & Others, 2007 (2) U.D. 92 , has held that where the disputed land is agricultural in nature and the plaintiffs are not the recorded tenure holders, then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the controversy because under the garb of permanent injunction, the purpose of the plaintiffs remains the declaration of their rights over the land, in question. Learned Civil Judge was also of the view that for such purpose, only the Revenue Court is competent. So, ultimately it was held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. The liberty was accordingly granted to the plaintiffs to take their suit back for launching the same at appropriate forum. 5. The plaintiffs filed the instant revision wherein by order dated 29.9.2008, the operation of the impugned order dated 2.8.2008 was stayed. It is very important to note here that after procuring such stay on day one of filing this revision, the revisionists did not show any interest in getting the matter decided by this Court and remained successful in dragging this case for more than seven long years either by getting the case adjourned on a number of dates on their own request or by not opposing the adjournments sought by the opposite parties on some other dates. The reason for dragging this case for such a long time can easily be understood. Since the interim order was in favour of the plaintiffs/revisionists, by virtue thereof they have been enjoying the benefits/usufructs of such a vast property, of whose they are neither the owners nor the lessees, therefore, the revisionists did not show any interest in final adjudication of this revision. In these circumstances, if the said interim order is allowed to operate for such a long period, then it would result in failure of justice and will rather legalise the injustice being done to the other parties. In these circumstances, if the said interim order is allowed to operate for such a long period, then it would result in failure of justice and will rather legalise the injustice being done to the other parties. This Court can no longer allow this unfettered free play on the part of the revisionists and, therefore, this matter has been finally heard today itself. 6. Learned Counsel of the revisionists has referred to a photostat copy of half-yearly extract of Khatauni harping upon the same to buttress his argument that the plaintiffs/revisionists are the recorded tenure holders ever since the time of their father Mr. Irshad Hussain. The original of this document has not been filed by the revisionists for the reasons best known to them. This photostat copy, as aforementioned, relates to the Fasli 1402 (1995 AD). He has stressed particularly on the words “Khatauni N Z.A.” written in the hand script at the upper right corner of such paper. Secondly, these three words at the right upper corner seem to have been added subsequently at the whims of someone and without any authenticity/veracity from the revenue records. The submission of learned Counsel for the revisionists is that Z.A. Act, 1950 will not be applicable in the matter in controversy. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the State Government has submitted that this land is virtually a Nazul land, as recorded in the Nazul Register, the mention whereof finds place in the judgment of the Division Bench itself (supra). 7. This Court is of the view that the entire controversy has already been decided effectively by an elaborate judgment dated 13.5.2013 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 919 of 2007, filed by these very petitioners/revisionists against the State of Uttarakhand. Such petition was filed by them way back in the year 2007 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the initiation of the proceedings of eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1972. Such petition was filed by them way back in the year 2007 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the initiation of the proceedings of eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph 25 of the judgment has observed as under: “In the above circumstances, since, the petitioners could not show themselves to be tenure holders, governed by any tenancy law, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, and this Court is of the opinion that the Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, had power to proceed under Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1972, to evict the petitioners from the land in question, which is part of Nazul Land.” 8. It is undisputed that the Special Appeal was preferred against the said judgment of learned Single Judge and such appeal was dismissed. So, in the above facts, as have been highlighted hereinabove, there remains no scope at all either for the Civil Court (Sr. Div.) or for this Court to sit over the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 13.5.2013 between the same parties, whereagainst even the Special Appeal has failed for whatever reasons. 9. Learned Counsel of the revisionists relied upon the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Awalamb & Others v. Jata Shanker, 1968 Revenue Decisions 470. The controversy which was decided by the Allahabad High Court was in entirely different perspective. The matter in issue was not of the similar nature as is before this Court in this revision and, more so, when such controversy has already been resolved by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.5.2013. 10. This Court feels that the sole purpose of the plaintiffs/revisionists is to somehow prolong the ongoing proceedings before the concerned Court and save themselves from getting evicted from the property, in question, and perhaps they have been successful in their nefarious attempts by way of filing several writ petitions and other litigations raising the coiling technicalities therein. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this revision has no force at all and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 29.9.2008 stands vacated. 12. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this revision has no force at all and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 29.9.2008 stands vacated. 12. The State Government is hereby directed to quickly proceed with the ongoing proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unatuhorised Occupants) Act, 1972, which shall be decided very promptly on day-to-day basis hearing, likely to be concluded at the earliest but not later than six months from today in any case.