AJEET Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Santosh Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, assisted by Sri Vishal Khandelwal / Sri Sushil Dubey for contesting respondent No. 8 and the learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dtd. 15/3/2022, passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 17/2008 (Computerized Case No. C2008110017) (Jai Ram and Others v. Ram Das and others), under Sec. 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, by which the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court to decide the case under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on merits, after opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that one Phool Singh was the original tenure holder of the plots of khata No. 8 and khata No. 10 situated in Village Chitahara, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Phool Singh had three sons namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Petitioners and contesting respondents are heirs and legal representatives of the three branches namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Consolidation operation started in the village in question by way of notification issued on 10/7/1980 under Sec. 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the dispute regarding the share between the parties was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dtd. 29/3/1986 under Sec. 9 A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, the shares of the parties were accordingly disclosed in C.H. Form II. The village in question was notified vide notification dtd. 30/11/2000 under Sec. 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Respondent Nos. 4 to 18 filed a suit under Sec. 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, claiming share on the basis of order dtd. 29/3/1986 passed by Consolidation Officer as the order of Consolidation Officer had attained finality before notification of the village under Sec. 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petitioners filed their written statement in the partition suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 18, taking ground that suit is barred by Sec. 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Trial Court vide order dtd. 16/7/2008 dismissed the partition suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 18 as barred by Sec. 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Respondent Nos. 4 to 18 challenged the order through revision before Board of Revenue under Sec. 333 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which has been allowed vide order dtd. 15/3/2022, setting aside the order dtd. 16/7/2008 and remanded the case before Trial Court to decide the partition suit on merit after hearing both parties by preparing preliminary decree in the light of final order dtd. 29/3/1986 passed by Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition.