MOHAMMAD YASEEN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramji Singh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, Sri D.D. Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha-respondent No. 14, and Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 13. The respondent Nos. 15 to 17 are the heirs of the vendor of the contesting parties. They have not put in contest as the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and the contesting respondents, which forms part of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.2.2011.

(2.) WHETHER the Board of Revenue, in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with the llnd Schedule appended thereto and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, could refuse to record the compromise as directed by this Court and carve out a new case for disposing of the second appeal under the impugned order dated 2.6.2011 giving rise to this petition, is the short question which has to be answered by this Court. The said issue has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties which in the opinion of the Court does not require any exchange of affidavits as the entire material is already available on record.

(3.) AN application, captioned as a compromise application dated 13.1.2011 supported by affidavits dated 26.12.2010, (ANnexure-23 to the petition) was filed before the Board of Revenue and was registered as Misc. Compromise Application No. 2. Strangely enough in a very peculiar manner while passing the impugned order dated 2.6.2011, the learned Member, Board of Revenue began by reciting that the matter was not only heard between the parties but was also decided in the presence of few members of the Bar. It is not understandable as to why such hearing was required to be given by the learned Member, Board of Revenue when there was a clear direction of the High Court to decide the matter in terms of the compromise itself. The learned Member, Board of Revenue instead of deciding the matter as per the judgment of this Court, in paragraph 7 of the impugned order states as under: