KALI PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. S. Sahai, senior advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 4.

(2.) The brief facts of case are that opposite party No. 5 was the bhumidhar of Plot No. 1519 measuring 2 bighas, 11 biswas, 19 dhoors situated at village Umara, pargana Issauli, tehsil Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur, who executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15.7.1994 for a consideration of Rs. 78,000. The said land was mortgaged with the bank against loan taken by opposite party No. 5 and as the opposite party No. 5 could not pay the loan of Rs. 14,819, the said property was auctioned for Rs. 38,000 in a public auction held on 4.4.1995 and opposite party No. 4 is the auction purchaser. The auction was approved on 23.5.1995. The petitioner after coming to know about the auction proceedings, filed an objection before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana, Sultanpur, and thereafter also approached to this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1726 of 1995 (MB). In the said writ petition, an order was passed for filing objection under Rule 285 (I) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules before the Commissioner and till the decision on the objection of the petitioner, the respondents of the said writ petition were restrained from dispossessing the possession from the plot in question. The petitioner thereafter filed a detailed objection on 29.6.1995 before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad who by the order dated 18.9.1996 allowed the objection. The said order was challenged by opposite party No. 4 by way of revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 31.12.1996. The opposite party No. 4 being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner and Board of Revenue, filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 363 of 1997 (MS) which was dismissed on 7.2.1997. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the opposite party No. 4 filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue for the review of the order dated 31.12.1996 and the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 8.9.1997 by which the order dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Commissioner was set aside. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order has approached this Court. The action of the opposite party No. 4 in approaching to the Board of Revenue by filling the review petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. Once this Court has confirmed the judgment and order dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the order dated 31.12.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue in Writ Petition No. 363 of 1997 (MS) preferred by opposite party No. 4 her action for approaching the Board of Revenue again by filing the review petition is in clear disregard to the judgment and order dated 7.2.1997. The impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue is legally not sustainable. The proceedings subsequent to 7.2.1997 when the writ petition preferred by opposite party No. 4 was dismissed by this Court are null and void. The sale certificate which was issued on 29.11.1999 in favour of opposite party No. 4 is a null and void document.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorati is issued quashing the order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the Collector, Sultanpur, to cancel the sale certificate dated 29.11.1999 which was issued in favour of opposite party No. 4 in pursuance of the auction held on 4.4.1995. The District Magistrate, Sultanpur, shall also ensure the possession of the petitioner over Plot No. 1519 measuring 2 bighas, 11 biswas, 19 dhoors situated at village Umara, pargana Issauli, tehsil Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur. The opposite party No. 4 has dragged the petitioner in litigation after the dismissal of his Writ Petition No. 363 of 1997 (MS) and therefore, he is liable to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the petitioner.