OMKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vikrant Rana for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15.10.2013 by which the revision has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 6.12.2012 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merit and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 3.1.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioners.

(2.) SMT . Suresh Devi filed a suit under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming herself as an heir of Smt. Mahendri Devi and declaring herself to be tenure -holder as bhumidhari right was inherited by her after the death of Mahendri Devi. In this suit the issues were framed. However, the Trial Court proceeded to decide the preliminary issue relating to maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court by judgment dated 6.12.2012 held that as the land in dispute was given on patta to Smt. Mahendri Devi under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 as such right over it shall be derived only on the basis of term of grant and not on basis of inheritance. On this finding the suit was dismissed. Smt. Suresh Devi filed a revision against the aforesaid order. Omkar Singh, petitioner also filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was got dismissed as withdrawn. The revision was heard by the Additional Commissioner, who by judgment dated 15.10.2013 allowed the revision and held that the suit was filed for declaration of right in respect of the land, therefore, the suit was maintainable. The Trial Court instead of deciding the suit after framing issues has illegally dismissed the suit only on the ground that it was not maintainable as such he set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for framing issues and deciding it after giving opportunity of evidence to the parties. The petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by judgment and order dated 3.1.2014. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.