ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.P. Tewari, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Yadav and Mr. Durgesh Chandra Tiwari, Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.13, 14 and 15 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Santu was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute and after death of Santu dispute arose and Smt. Dubeya widow of late Santu filed a suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L R. Act in respect to the plot mentioned in list 'A' of the plaint. The aforesaid suit was filed on 14/11/1990 bearing Suit No.180 of 1990. During pendency of the suit, one application has been filed by plaintiff Smt. Dubeya on 6/8/2005 for exclusion of name of defendant No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 25 from the array of the parties of defendant on the ground that their names have already been expunged from the revenue record. It was also prayed that Ramesh, Rakesh and Suresh sons of Ram Dhuni be added as defendant No.1, 2 and 3 in the array of the defendants of the suit. It is also prayed that in place of defendant No.4, the name of Pushpa Devi be added. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 6/8/2005 allowed the application filed by plaintiff-Smt. Dubeya. Another application was filed on 19/7/2005 by plaintiff Smt. Dubeya for transposing Chandra Sen Singh as plaintiff No.2 in the array of the plaintiff. The aforementioned application was also allowed by Sub-Divisional-Officer by order dtd. 19/7/2005. The plaint filed by the plaintiff was accordingly amended. During pendency of the suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act parties to the suit have entered into compromise, which was dully identified by their Advocates in presence of the Court and the Sub-Divisional-Officer vide order dtd. 26/8/2005 decided the plaintiff-suit filed by Smt. Dubeya and Chandra Sen Singh in terms of the compromise vide judgment and decree dtd. 26/8/2005. Respondent No.7 (Dhunmun) and Respondent No.8 (Paras Nath Rai) moved a recall application dtd. 26/11/2005 and 23/9/2005 for recalling the judgment and decree dtd. 6/8/2005/26/8/2005. Petitioner filed one transfer application before the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dtd. 16/12/2005 in which comments were invited and record was also summoned. Plaintiff No.2 Chandra Sen Singh filed an application on 17/12/2005 before trial court (Sub Divisional Officer) for summoning the Paras Nath Rai who filed recall application agaisnt the judgment and decree of the trial court. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 20/12/2005 directed that Paras Nath Rai be appeared in person as well as alleged Advocate Prahlad Singh, but on the date fixed before the Sub-Divisional Officer neither Paras Nath Rai, nor alleged Advocate, Prahalad Singh appeared. Sub-Divisional Officer without considering the aforesaid aspect of the case passed ex-parte order dtd. 22/12/2005 setting aside the order dtd. 26/8/2005. Against the order dtd. 22/12/2005 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was entertained and interim order was also granted on 9/1/2007. Board of Revenue has also called for certain enquiry from the Collector Gorakhpur vide order dtd. 12/1/2006 accordingly District Magistrate, Gorakhpur constituted three members committee to conduct inquiry and submit the report. A report dtd. 22/4/2006 has been submitted by three members committee to the Board of Revenue. The applicant of the recall application, namely Dhuman Prasad filed an affidavit before the Board of Revenue stating that he has not filed any recall application before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the judgment and decree dtd. 26/8/2005. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the revison filed by the petitioner vide order dtd. 24/7/2014. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the following interim order dtd. 25/8/2014: