CHHATTHU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 as also Sri M.N.Singh, on behalf of respondent no. 4 Gram Sabha. - Notice need not be issued to the respondents no. 5 to 8 in view of the order being passed herein.

(2.) A caveat has been reported on behalf of one Nurresa wife of Tebarak by Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari advocate who has been served with a copy of the writ petition on 31.07.2012 but although the list of fresh cases has been revised, yet Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari is not present.

(3.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.03.2012 passed in Case No. 59, Chhatthu vs. Gaon Sabha, whereby the restoration application filed by State of U.P. has been allowed and the earlier order dated 04.06.2008 passed in proceedings under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') has been recalled, as also the impugned order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the revisional Court in Revision No. 152/D -2012, Chhatthu vs. Mr. Lakhan Megh Dalan and others, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the Act, which was decreed on 04.06.2008 wherein it was clearly recorded that the land in question was entered in the name of respondents no. 5 to 8 herein but they had left the country and never came back and according to the statement of Gram Pradhan the petitioner is in possession over the land in question since last more than 50 years, therefore, he has acquired bhumidhari rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notices were issued and Gaon Sabha was duly represented and Gram Pradhan made statement before the trial Court, therefore, the State could not have maintained the restoration application against said order but the court below has illegally allowed the restoration application by the impugned order and restored the suit to its original number to be re -decided afresh. No notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order and the revision has also been illegally dismissed.