JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. This is a First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been preferred by the appellant, who has been described as under :- “Audyogik Avam Shaikshanik Sansthan” 2. The appellant herein, is shown to have been represented through its Secretary Smt. Leela Negi. During the pendency of the Appeal, an Intervention Application, being Intervention Application No. 8517 of 2020, has been filed by one Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, who while claiming himself to be permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 3, on various counts, which has been agitated in the said intervention application, in fact, it was on the pretext, that he claims himself to be a member of the society of the appellant, and hence, if any decision is taken in the Appeal, it will automatically impede the rights and the interests of the society, which is being sought to be protected by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali. 3. In fact, if the grounds for the intervention application, are taken into consideration, it has been contended by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, that since he being the office bearer, he is necessarily required to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The grounds taken in the intervention application is not very alluring for the Court, for the following reasons:- (i) Initially, a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2010, was preferred before this Court by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, claiming himself to be the member of the Society of the appellant, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, holding thereof, that petitioners’ remedy would be, to approach under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable by virtue of the UP State Amendment to establish by procedure provided therein that whether he is even the member of the society, then the question of his chairmanship could be decided thereafter. (ii) The proceedings drawn by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, as a consequence thereto under Section 25 of the Act, was rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 5th September 2012. (iii) As against the rejection of the proceedings under Section 25, which was initiated by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, as a consequence of the judgement rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2010, Mr. (iii) As against the rejection of the proceedings under Section 25, which was initiated by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, as a consequence of the judgement rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2010, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, had preferred yet an another Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2101 of 2012. 4. In the writ petition thus preferred by one Ms. Naida Akhtar in which, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, was the petitioner No. 6, he has put a challenge to the election, which was held on 4th November 2010, which is said to have been agitated by him even in the earlier Writ Petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2010, but, however, the learned coordinate Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2101 of 2012, where the challenge was given to the order of the learned Prescribed Authority dated 5th September 2012, rendered in the proceedings under Section 25 of Societies Registration Act, was dismissed by the judgement dated 20th May 2019. 5. In fact, the coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with its observations made in para 8, had observed the claim of the petitioners therein, they have utterly failed to prove, that they were even ever duly inducted members of the Society, and the reasons, which was assigned by the Registrar with regard to the reference of in the proceedings under Section 25, was decided against the intervener. 6. The judgement of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20th May 2019, was thereafter put to challenge by the petitioners of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2101 of 2012, which included Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench of this Court too, vide its judgement rendered in Special Appeal No. 707 of 2019, had dismissed the Special Appeal by the judgement dated 26th July 2019, and the relevant observations, which have been made, are contained in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgement, which are extracted hereunder:- “10. Since the said judgment was delivered on 26.11.1998, before the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000, the law declared by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the aforesaid judgment, is binding on this Court. Since the said judgment was delivered on 26.11.1998, before the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09.11.2000, the law declared by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the aforesaid judgment, is binding on this Court. It is evident, therefore, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, is a Tribunal; and, consequently, an intra-Court Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition, questioning such an order of the Tribunal constituted under a Central or a State Act, would not lie under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. 11. While dismissing the Appeal as not maintainable, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the order under appeal, and it is always open to the appellants-writ petitioners to avail the remedies in terms of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal.” 7. In the aforesaid judgment, while taking cognizance to the decision of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which has been rendered under Section 25 of the Act, it was observed that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, as against the order of the learned Tribunal, the Appeal would not be maintainable, but however, the remedy left open to the petitioner, was to avail an appropriate remedy, as available to him under law. 8. This judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 26th July 2019, has attained finality. 9. There was yet another writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 605 of 2011, in which the petitioners therein have questioned the propriety regarding the issue of acquiring the land for expansion of Jolly Grant Airport, and the controversy regarding determination of compensation therein. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition in the capacity of being the office bearers of the Society, while the rival group, which was headed by the present secretary of the Society, claimed the rival claim, qua Mohammad Yamin Ali in the capacity of being the office bearer of the society, to agitate the issue of acquisition and the consequential compensation. 10. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1605 of 2021, in fact, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, had put a challenge to an order dated 3rd March 2011, as it was rendered by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Land Acquisition Misc. 10. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1605 of 2021, in fact, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, had put a challenge to an order dated 3rd March 2011, as it was rendered by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 152 of 2006, whereby, the amount of compensation was directed to be released in favour of Mr. Bhopal Negi, who is said to be heading the rival group that of the appellant. 11. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding the writ petition, in fact, it has very specifically observed, that there are two rival groups raising their rival claims - one headed by the petitioner i.e. Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, who are claiming to be in the effective control of the society and there are allegations and counter allegations pertaining to the two rival groups, to secure the interests of the society. It was observed in the order of this Court, that it will be desirable that the two rival groups may resort their recourse of adjudicating their rights before the competent Court. 12. It was even observed, that in case if the Suit is not filed within two months, the aspect of release of the amount in favour of the society, that would be decided in terms of the judgement of the 6th Additional District Judge, as decided in Miscellaneous Case No. 152 of 2006. 13. The judgement of the learned Single Judge, which was rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 605 of 2011, was put to challenge by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, directly by approaching before the Hon’ble Apex Court, by preferring an SLP, being SLP No. 2794 of 2019, Mohammad Yamin Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide its judgement dated 24th February 2020, wherein, it was observed that the petitioner may file a review petition before the Court as against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 20th May 2019, for the redressal of his grievances, if any. 14. In compliance of the said judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 24th February 2020, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, in fact, did preferred a Review Petition being Review Application No. 219 of 2020 in the WPMS No. 605 of 2011, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgement dated 12th October 2020. 14. In compliance of the said judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 24th February 2020, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, in fact, did preferred a Review Petition being Review Application No. 219 of 2020 in the WPMS No. 605 of 2011, which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgement dated 12th October 2020. However, as a consequence thereto, the judgement of the learned Single Judge, which stood affirmed as a consequence of the rejection of the Review Petition, after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was rendered on 24th February 2020, was also a subject matter of consideration in SLP No. 712 of 2019 at the behest of Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, and the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 25th July 2019, where it had observed that the Special Appeal would not be maintainable. But, however, the right was reserved that Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, may avail his appropriate remedy, which was available to him in accordance with law, and as per the observations made by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 20th May 2019. 15. But, however, no remedy was availed by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, hence the judgement of the Division Bench dated 25th July 2019, had attained finality. 16. In fact, in yet an another set of proceedings drawn by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, by way of a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 729 of 2020, the petitioner therein had sought a writ of mandamus, commanding responder No. 2, i.e. Registrar, Firms and Societies, to register the petitioners’ society in accordance with law. The coordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgement dated 15th July 2020, had made the following observations:- “Admittedly, the last election in the said society was held in the year 2010 pursuant to the direction of this Court in WPMS No. 950 of 2020. Mohammad Yamin Ali, who has filed this writ petition as President of the Society, had challenged the said election by filing WPMS No. 2206 of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that petitioner has remedy of approaching the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of Societies Registration Act. Mohammad Yamin Ali, who has filed this writ petition as President of the Society, had challenged the said election by filing WPMS No. 2206 of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that petitioner has remedy of approaching the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of Societies Registration Act. In terms of the order of this Court, Mohammad Yamin Ali approached the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act and the Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 05.09.2012, decided the reference against Mohammad Yamin Ali, by holding that he is not validly inducted as member of the Society. Finding recorded by Prescribed Authority against Mohammad Yamin Ali still stands and has not been set-aside by any Court of law.” 17. The coordinate Bench of this Court has observed, that the last election of the Society was held in the year 2010, and that too it was held in pursuance to the directions of this Court, which had been rendered in yet another writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 950 of 2020, Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, who claimed himself to be the President of the Society, had challenged the election by filing a writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2010, which was dismissed, and consequently, while making observations with regard to the impact of the judgement of the learned Prescribed Authority dated 5th September 2012, rendered in the proceedings under Section 25, it was ultimately concluded by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 15th July 2020, that Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, he was not at all directly inducted as a member of the Society, and the findings recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority against Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, in its decision dated 5th September 2012, which otherwise stood affirmed in a Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 707 of 2019, was reiterated by the judgement of the learned Single Judge, which was rendered on 15th July 2007. 18. It's not even that, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 729 of 2020, in its judgement dated 15th July 2020, was once again a subject matter of challenge by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, by preferring a Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 174 of 2020. 18. It's not even that, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 729 of 2020, in its judgement dated 15th July 2020, was once again a subject matter of challenge by Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, by preferring a Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 174 of 2020. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 20th June 2022, had dismissed the Special Appeal, and the resultant effect of dismissal of the Appeal would be, that the findings which were recorded qua the proceedings, which were held under Section 25, which was decided on 25th September 2012, and which was a subject matter of under consideration in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2101 of 2012, was affirmed, against Mr. Mohammad Yamin Ali, and hence consequentially he would be, for all practical purposes, after the judgement dated 20th June 2022, his prior status would be that as determined by the learned Single Judge in the judgement dated 15th July 2020, that he was not even the member of the Society of which, he claims himself to be the President, based on which, the present Intervention Application has been filed. 19. The judgement of the Division Bench dated 20th June 2022, which had been rendered in a Special Appeal No. 174 of 2020, in fact, it has been informed at bar that no further proceedings had been carried thereafter, and the status of the intervener would be deemed to have been upheld, as to be not even to be the member of the Society, and hence his Intervention Application, as sought in the present First Appeal, by virtue of an Application being Application No. 8517 of 2020, would not be sustainable, and hence, this Intervention Application would stand rejected, in view of the reasons, which have already been considered and discussed above. 20. So far as IA No. 16681 of 2021, is concerned, as filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the State, who is represented by Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder, and the respondent No. 2, who is represented by Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate, may file their objections to the said application, which has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 21. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder, and the respondent No. 2, who is represented by Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate, may file their objections to the said application, which has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 21. As far as IA No. 16683 of 2022 is concerned, which has been preferred by the appellant, along with the rejoinder affidavit, that would be deemed to have been disposed of, in view of the orders passed on the Intervention Application No. 8517 of 2022.