NIJAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard R.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kalpnath Rai, learned counsel on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5. Father of respondent No. 5, i.e. Riyasat Hussain filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the year 1980. Apart from formal parties State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha, there were two defendants. One was Jahoor (Zahoor), father of petitioner and the other was Sharif, Respondent No. 6. Both Jahoor and Sharif were real brothers. It was stated that in the suit compromise had taken place 4.4.1980, however the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise in the year 1995. The suit had been renumbered as Suit No. 610 of 1992. The compromise was shown to have been verified on 4.4.1981. Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise on 5.8.1995. It is not at all understandable as to why the Court took 14 years for decreeing the suit on the basis of compromise.

(2.) In the year 2004, petitioner, his brothers respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and respondent No. 6 filed restoration application, copy of which is Annexure-IV to the writ petition. In para- 5 of the restoration application it was mentioned that Jahoor father of applicant Nos. 2 to 4, who was one of the defendants in the suit had not entered into any compromise and he had also died before the decision of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Jahoor died on 20.9.1994 as stated in para-6 of the writ petition. In para-11 of the writ petition it is mentioned that for execution of compromise decree dated 5.8.1995, respondent No. 5 filed application for mutation in the year 2004. The restoration application was filed on 29.6.2004 (or 21.6.2004). Deputy Collector/S.D.O., Karvai, Ghazipur through order dated 29.5.2006 rejected the restoration application. Against the order dated 29.5.2006 petitioner filed Revision No. 118 of 2006, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Judicial-II, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on 10.8.2006 hence this writ petition.

(3.) Shri Kalpnath, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has argued the following points.