VINOD JOEL AND OTHERS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 22.3.1999, 19.11.1998, 16.10.1987 and 1.9.1986 passed by the Courts below.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Smt. Nirmala Nath, wife of Major Paterson Vishshwar Nath filed a suit for partition under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was registered as Original Suit No. 37 of 1986 in the revenue Court, district Meerut claiming 1/4th share in the land in dispute. On behalf of the defendant-respondents, a written statement was filed admitting the claim of the plaintiff The parties appeared before the Court and also admitted orally, the claim of the plaintiff, therefore, the suit was decreed for 1/4th share on the basis of admission of the parties, by the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 1.9.1986. The 3/4th share in the property in dispute was given to defendants No. 1 to 3. Defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in which respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have applied for impleadment. At the appellate stage, certain documentary additional evidence was also filed. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 16.10.1987. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also affirmed the orders passed by the Courts below and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 19.11.1998. It may be noted here that the said revision was dismissed by Shri Ram Janam Singh, who has been impleaded in person as respondent No. 4 in the present case. Thereafter, tire petitioners filed a review application under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 22.3.1999, hence the present petition.