MITTHU LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Pandey for the petitioner and Sri H.K. Mishra for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 5.2.1990, Additional Commissioner dated 24.10.1990 and Board of Revenue dated 15.10.1993 by which a suit filed by the petitioner under section 229 -B read with section 122 -B(4 -F) of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed.

(2.) THE dispute relates to between the parties in respect of plot No. 69 and 70 of village Salem Bhadari, tehsil Lalganj, district Pratapgarh. Earlier Abid Ali and others (respondents -5 to 8) filed a suit under section 299 -B, read with section 122 -B(4 -F) of the Act for declaring them as bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the basis of their possession over it. The suit was decreed by the judgment 29.1.1986 as Pradhan admitted possession of the respondents. On coming to know about the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte decree. Gaon Sabha also filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte decree. Both the applications were consolidated and decided by Sub Divisional Officer, who by order dated 15.2.1989 held that as the petitioner was not party in the suit as such his application filed for setting aside the decree was not maintainable and in respect of Goan Sabha it has been held that the application was time barred as such it is not maintainable. Both the applications were dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present suit, in which the contesting respondents appeared and raised an objection that they had already been declared bhumidhar of the land in dispute and the recall application filed by the petitioner had already been rejected as such fresh suit on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable. Sub -Divisional Officer, by judgment dated 5.2.1990, dismissed the suit on the ground that the matter in this respect has already been decided by the judgment dated 29.1.1996 and the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid decree has also been rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 24.10.1990 and the second appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by Board of Revenue by order dated 15.10.1993. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsels for the parties and examined the records. A perusal of the orders of three Revenue Courts shows that the suit of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The Courts below found that as Suit No. 312 of 1986 has already been decided by Sub Divisional Officer in respect of the same land as such the other suit filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.