BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Khasara No.395 M measuring 1.06 hectare (2.68 acre) situated in Mauja Basai Sher Ghar, Bangar, Tehsil-Chhata, District-Mathura belong to one Munshi son of Ghanturi, who executed a registered sale deed on 21/11/1991 in favour of Basanta son of Bhajana. Another sale deed was executed by Basanta with respect to 0.82 acre in favour of Bhagwat son of Ghanturi and for 0.62 acre area sale deed was executed by Basanta in favour of Balram son of Maunsi. On 21/6/1993 Balram executed sale-deed in favour of respondent No.6 Basanta executed another sale deed on 7/2/1992 with respect to 0.62 acre area in favour of Harveer son of Munshi. On 7/5/1994 Mushi further executed sale deed with respect to 0.62 acre area in favour of one Bhanwar Singh and others who executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 29/8/2000. Due to violation of Sec. -168-A of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act the mutation applied by respondent No.6 were rejected by Tehsildar vide order dtd. 30/6/2006. The revision filed by respondent No.6 against the order of Tahildar dtd. 30/6/2006 was dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 26/6/2008. Balram and others (Vendor of respondent NO.6 executed two sale deed in favour of petitioner's father on 23/7/2008 and 1/8/2008, the name of petitioner's father was accordingly mutated vide order dtd. 9/9/2008. Respondent No.6 filed an application to recall the order dtd. 9/9/2008 passed by the Tehsildar which was rejected vide order dtd. 9/6/2009 on the ground of pendency of writ petition No.47211 of 2008 Bhagwat versus State of U.P. And others, the order of status quo has been also passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.47211 of 2008. Respondent No.6 filed another mutation application dtd. 5/5/2010 on the basis of Government Notification dtd. 5/2/2010 by which bar of Sec. -168-A was lifted with condition of payment of Rs.1000.00 or 2% of the cost of the land whichever is higher accordingly Upziladhikar vide order dtd. 22/5/2010 ordered that if respondent No.6 will deposit Rs.14420.00 in treasury the sale-deed executed in his favour will become regular and legal.

(3.) Petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. For recalling the ex parte order dtd. 22/5/2010 but the same was rejected vide order dtd. 4/4/2012 by Upziladhihar. Petitioners challenged the order dtd. 4/4/2012 through Revision before Board of Revenue which was dismissed in default on 16/11/2016 accordingly petitioners filed restoration application on 30/1/2017 which was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 4/8/2017 on the ground earlier passed on 30/11/2016 was on merit as such no interference was made against the order dtd. 30/11/2016 hence this writ petition.