JUDGMENT : LOK PAL SINGH, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26.03.2018, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 166/2017-18, Amandeep Singh and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Almora and Others. 2. Facts, as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that father of the petitioner was in possession of agricultural land situated in Village Papersali, Tehsil and District Almora in Khasra no. 1, total measuring 93 Nali 12 Mutthi, out of 201 Nali, since the time of Britishers. After the death of his father, petitioner is in possession of the property in question for last more than 40 years and is cultivating the same. When some intruders tried to interfere in the possession of the petitioner, he filed a civil suit no. 28 of 1995, Puran Singh Vs State and another seeking permanent injunction and declaration. Aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff Puran Singh was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2007. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 27.08.2007, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2007, Puran Singh vs. State and Another before the District Judge, Almora. Said Civil Appeal too was dismissed. Aggrieved against the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2007, petitioner filed Second Appeal no. 39 of 2008 before this Court and succeeded in obtaining an interim order. Said Second Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and a restoration application filed for restoration of second appeal is still pending disposal. 3. Simultaneously, the petitioner instituted a Revenue Suit No. 9/03-2004, Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others on the basis of his long standing possession over the property in question under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act seeking declaration as owner of the said land. Said suit was dismissed by the revenue court vide judgment and order dated 02.03.2006. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal no. 87/2010-11/13/2010-11, under Section 331 of the UPZA&LR Act, which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2014. Petitioner assailed the order dated 11.02.2014, by filing Second Appeal No. Nil/2017-18, under Section 331(4) of the UPZA&LR Act, before the Board of Revenue Uttarakhand, Circuit Court, Naintial, which is pending adjudication. 4. 87/2010-11/13/2010-11, under Section 331 of the UPZA&LR Act, which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2014. Petitioner assailed the order dated 11.02.2014, by filing Second Appeal No. Nil/2017-18, under Section 331(4) of the UPZA&LR Act, before the Board of Revenue Uttarakhand, Circuit Court, Naintial, which is pending adjudication. 4. It is averred that during the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, respondent nos. 2 and 3 fraudulently got executed a sale deed of the entire land of Khata no. 1, admeasuring 201 Nali, on 19.01.2009. A suit, being O.S. Suit No. 64 of 2003, American Methodist Mission vs. Puran Singh, seeking prohibitory injunction was decreed against the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Almora vide judgment and order dated 16.04.2012. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 60 of 2012, Pooran Singh vs. American Methodist Mission and Others, before this Court which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2015. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order dated 22.01.2015, passed by this Court in F.A. No. 60 of 2012. One Awadhesh Kumar Verma also preferred Special Leave Petitions Nos. 36208 of 2013, 36209 of 2013 and 6151 of 2015, respectively. 5. In the meantime, a Revenue Case no. 01/2015-16 was instituted by the State Government under Section 167 of UPZA&LR Act against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner was also made party to the said proceedings. In said suit, the sale deeds executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were declared null and void vide order dated 31.10.2017, passed by Assistant Collector (First Class), Sadar, Almora. 6. It is also averred that one Mr. Richard Wheeler, who was also in possession of some part of the property in dispute, also filed a suit, being Revenue Suit No. 54/2005-06, under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act in the year 2006 before Assistant Collector, Bara Mandal, Almora seeking declaration of his title on his part of the said land. An appeal was filed by Mr. Richard Wheeler before the Board of Revenue against dismissal of his suit under Section 229-B of UPZA&LR Act. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 also filed appeals primarily against Mr. Richard Wheeler. Second Appeal was preferred before the Revenue Council, Uttarakhand, being Second Appeal no. An appeal was filed by Mr. Richard Wheeler before the Board of Revenue against dismissal of his suit under Section 229-B of UPZA&LR Act. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 also filed appeals primarily against Mr. Richard Wheeler. Second Appeal was preferred before the Revenue Council, Uttarakhand, being Second Appeal no. 41 of 2015-16, Richard Wheeler Vs State of Uttarakhand, through Collector, Almora and others. Respondents (seller and purchasers) also preferred two Second Appeals, being S.A. No. 163 of 2015-16 and S.A. No. 164 of 2015-16, Aman Deep Singh and Others vs. Richard Wheeler and Others. All these appeals were consolidated and heard together by the Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand, who vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 dismissed Second Appeal no. 41 of 2015-16 and allowed the S.A. nos. 163 of 154 of 2015-16, setting aside the order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Nainital and affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.01.2014, passed by the Assistant Collector, I Class, Almora. 7. Meanwhile, aforementioned Special Leave Petitions (Civil) were finally decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2017. The same is reproduced hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On 25th August 2017, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand states that proceedings pending before the State-Authorities will be concluded within a period of two months from today. It will be open to the parties to present their view points before the concerned authority in accordance with law. A copy of the final order be brought on record to this Court before the next date. List the matters on 4th December, 2017.” It has been brought to our notice that two orders have been passed. One, dated 30th July, 2017, by the Assistant Collector (1st Class), Sadar, Almora and another dated 30th November, 2017 by the Revenue Council, Dehradun. In view of above two orders, no order is necessary on the special leave petitions and the contempt petition. Accordingly, the same stand disposed of. If any party is aggrieved by the above orders, the same may be challenged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 8. It is further averred that respondent nos. Accordingly, the same stand disposed of. If any party is aggrieved by the above orders, the same may be challenged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 8. It is further averred that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are trying to grab the property in question and with this ill intention filed a revision against the order dated 31.10.2017 before the Revenue Council without impleading the petitioner as party in said proceedings. Said revision was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2018. It is contended that learned revisional court has erred in law in allowing the revision without appreciating the fact that the orders passed in appeal have yet not attained finality. It is alleged that in the garb of order dated 26.03.2018 the respondents are continuing with execution proceedings and are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. Hence, present writ petition. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-State. In paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that it is incorrect to say that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since last 40 years and is cultivating the same. In paragraph no. 11 it has been stated that sale deed executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 was executed in violation of Section 152-A and 154(4) of the UPZA&LR Act, as amended in the year 2003, and hence the same were rightly declared null and void and the land in question was rightly vested in the State Government under Section 167 of the Act. 10. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 also filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the American Methodist Mission, Almora (respondent no. 4) is the owner of the suit property. Respondent no. 4 was formally known as Executive Board of Methodist Church in Southern Asia, popularly known as the successor in interest of American Methodist Mission. Subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Act, 1860, the name of the society is changed to the Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India vide order of Asstt. Charity Commissioner of Bombay dated 25.03.1982. The rights and powers to manage the interest of the former conference in properties, funds etc. Subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Act, 1860, the name of the society is changed to the Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India vide order of Asstt. Charity Commissioner of Bombay dated 25.03.1982. The rights and powers to manage the interest of the former conference in properties, funds etc. were finally bestowed upon the Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India via general Conference of the Methodist Church in Southern Asia. The Methodist Church in India became the successor in interest of the Methodist Church in Southern Asia. Thereafter, the sale deed dated 19.01.2009 was executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3. In paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has no right to challenge the sale deed as well as the ownership of respondent no. 4 as he has no lien except that his father was caretaker and after the death of his father, petitioner in no way can inherit the right of occupation merely of the ground that his father was the caretaker of the suit property. It is alleged that the petitioner wants to become the owner of the entire property by way of adverse possession which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 11. It the counter affidavit respondent no. 4 has almost reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in regard to ownership of the suit property as well as plea of adverse possession. It is stated that the seller is fully competent and empower to execute the sale deed dated 19.01.2009. Lastly, it is stated that how can the petitioner challenge the order dated 26.03.2018, in which he was not even the party, as such, the writ petitioner is liable to dismissed with exemplary costs. 12. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession of property in question for last more than 40 years and had matured his rights on the basis of long uninterrupted adverse possession. He would further submit that judgment dated 26.03.2018 was passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording opportunity of hearing to him. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession of property in question for last more than 40 years and had matured his rights on the basis of long uninterrupted adverse possession. He would further submit that judgment dated 26.03.2018 was passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording opportunity of hearing to him. He would also submit that the order impugned is against the settled principle of law and is in violation of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the revision filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the petitioner. The revisional court erred in law in ignoring the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Nainital. Lastly, it is contended that the Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to pass the judgment impugned as it has assumed the powers not vested in it by law. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has lost the civil dispute upto Hon’ble Apex Court. Subsequent thereto, pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner instituted a Revenue Suit No. 9/03-2004, Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others on the basis of his long standing possession over the property in question under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act seeking declaration as owner of the said land. Said suit was dismissed by the revenue court vide judgment and order dated 02.03.2006. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal no. 87/2010-11/13/2010-11, under Section 331 of the UPZA&LR Act, which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2014. Petitioner assailed the order dated 11.02.2014, by filing Second Appeal No. Nil/2017-18, under Section 331(4) of the UPZA&LR Act, before the Board of Revenue Uttarakhand, Circuit Court, Naintial, which is pending adjudication. 15. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.03.2018, whereby the Chairman, Revenue Council has held that the sale deed dated 19.01.2009 executed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 is valid. The State of Uttarakhand has also challenged the order dated 26.03.2018 by filing Writ Petition No. 2180 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Amandeep Singh and Others. This Court has dismissed the said writ petition filed by the State. 16. The petitioner is claiming adverse possession against respondent nos. 2 and 3 is valid. The State of Uttarakhand has also challenged the order dated 26.03.2018 by filing Writ Petition No. 2180 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Amandeep Singh and Others. This Court has dismissed the said writ petition filed by the State. 16. The petitioner is claiming adverse possession against respondent nos. 2 and 3 which is evident from the fact that he had filed the suit for declaration on his rights on the ground of alleged adverse possession. The suit as well as the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner were dismissed and second appeal filed by him is pending adjudication before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand. It is not the case of the petitioner that in case the property in dispute vests in the State of Uttarakhand, he will be entitled for any declaration of his right of adverse possession against the State Government. The petitioner is taking self-contradictory plea by challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 by means of this writ petition. The order impugned will not affect the petitioner in any manner if, otherwise, not set aside by this Court. This Court has affirmed the order dated 26.03.2018 in Writ Petition No. 2180 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Amandeep Singh and Others. The petitioner has to contest his case before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand as his second appeal is pending adjudication before said authority, as alleged by the petitioner himself. Since the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 17. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.