YADURAJ SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Kesari, learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri D.D. Chauhan on behalf of respondent No. 5 Gaon Sabha as also Sri Shyam Lal Yadav who has put in appearance by caveat on behalf of respondent No. 6. Since all the respondents are represented, the writ petition is being decided finally today itself. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.7.2012 passed in Review Application No. 4 of 2010-11 filed in Second Appeal No. 29 of 1998-99 by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that during pendency of the second appeal, an application for compromise had been filed by the parties. However, the said compromise was not accepted by the Board of Revenue in the second appeal and therefore, it was rejected and further it was recorded by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 7.7.2005 that no substantial question of law is Involved in the second appeal and hence, the second appeal was also dismissed. The order dated 7.7.2005 was passed on a restoration application filed by the petitioner for recalling the earlier order dated 19.5.2005 whereby the second appeal was dismissed. The restoration application was allowed and the second appeal was restored to its original number. However, the compromise was rejected and the second appeal was dismissed since it involved no substantial question of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners filed review application No. 4 of 2010-11 in the aforesaid second appeal No. 29 of 1998-99 which application has been rejected by the Board of Revenue under the impugned order dated 4.7.2012 for the reason that the earlier order dated 7.7.2005 rejecting the compromise application was in accordance with law and secondly that the review application has been filed belatedly after 6 years without giving sufficient reason to condone the delay.