RAMANUJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Shri S.K. Yadav holding brief of Shri Anuj Kumar for Respondent No. 4 Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Undisputed facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that the Petitioner filed suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) seeking declaration of his rights in the disputed land which was dismissed by the trial Court. The Petitioner went up in appeal, vide judgment and decree dated 17.2.2010, lower appellate Court decreed the suit. Subsequently, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed vide order dated 16.4.2010 by the appellate Court without any notice or opportunity to the Petitioner and the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2010 was recalled and the appeal was fixed for rehearing. Order dated 16.4.2010 was challenged by the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 26334 of 2010, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 331(3) of the Act. The Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 21.5.2010 dismissed the same on the ground that a second appeal would lie under Section 331(4) of the Act and the First Appeal From Order under Section 331(3) was not maintainable.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of Section 331(3) of the Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie from an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or in Order 43 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, as such, the appeal was maintainable and has wrongly and illegally been dismissed by the Board of Revenue.