RADHEY SHYAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE UP LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition, the Petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and orders dated 21st of November, 2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow in Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Heera Lal and Ors. revision No. 130 LR/2003-2004 as well as the order dated 8.6.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur.

(2.) The dispute relates to the plot No. 92/2 situate in village Jagdishpur, Tappa Kone, Tehsil Sadar, district-Mirzapur. The said plot was in the name of Subalak in the year 1347 Fasli and 1356 Fasli. The contesting Respondents herein are the decedents of Subalak. However, in 1359 Fasli name of Ram Khelawan was entered into the Revenue record. The said Revenue entries continued. The village was notified for consolidation. No objection was filed by Subalak or his sons etc. and the Revenue entry continued in the name of Ram Khelawan. After a long period of time, proceedings were initiated by Subalak to correct the Revenue record under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, giving rise to the present writ petition. It was registered as Case No. 11 of 2003 under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur who by the order dated 8.6.2004 held that name of Subalak son of Beni was continuing in the Revenue record since 1347 Fasli. His name was recorded in 1356 Fasli as well as in 1359 Fasli. For the first time, his name was scored off in 1359 Fasli unauthorizedly. In the remarks column, no reason for scoring off name of Subalak has been mentioned. He, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, held that entry in the name of Ram Khelawan made for the first time in the year 1359 Fasli is forged and unauthorized one. Consequently, it ordered the expunction of name of Ram Khelawan and ordered for mutation of names of Kisori Lal, Hari Lal, Bihari Lal all sons of Subalak. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the Board of Revenue in revision No. 130 LR of 2003-2004/ Mirzapur.

(3.) Sri R.N. Saxena, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the authorities below committed illegality in striking out the long standing Revenue entries. Elaborating the argument, he submits that there was a litigation between the parties in Civil Court and Revenue Court as well. No objections were filed during the consolidation operation and as such the present proceeding is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He submits that a civil suit No. 718 of 1996 was filed which was dismissed and the present proceedings are, therefore, barred in as much as a second suit is barred under Order IX, Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure.