LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-332

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD

Decided On March 18, 2024
ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 and Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter shall be referred as "U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act" filed by Ram Chandra and Anjani Lal sons of Mahabir impleading Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad and State of U.P. as defendants claiming bhumidhari right over plot No. 297 area 2/2/10 of Khata No-354 situated in village - Phaphamau, Pargana and Tahsil - Soraon, District Allahabad. The aforementioned Suit No. 21/64 was registered as suit No. 2/64 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Soraon, Allahabad and issues were framed in the suit. The aforementioned suit was decreed by trial court vide judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/1994 expunging the entry of banjar in respect to disputed plot and holding that plot in dispute is ancestral property of plaintiff. Gaon Sabha applied for restoration /recall after about nine years on 3/9/2003 along with the prayer for condonation of delay as well as interim relief against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/1994 on the ground that plot is recorded as Navin parti as such Gaon Sabha was necessary party in the suit but without impleading the Gaon Sabha the suit has been filed and decree has been obtained. Gaon Sabha also setup a claim that old Number of the plot No. 297 was 107 rather 102. Sub-Divisional officer initially granted interim order on 3/9/2003 staying the operations of judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/1994 and subsequently vide final order dtd. 14/12/2005 the recall application was allowed and judgment and decree dtd. 7/4/1994 was set aside. Plaintiffs filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed vide judgment dtd. 24/8/2006 setting aside the order dtd. 14/12/2005 and remanded the matter back before Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the suit afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 24.8. 2006 matter was heard afresh and vide order dtd. 17/6/2010 trial court again maintained the earlier order dtd. 14/12/2005 and directed to record the plot No. 297 as Gaon Sabha plot. Respondent No. 8 who is claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed on 8/4/2004 in her favour by plaintiff challenged the judgment of trial Court/ Sub-Divisional Officer dared 17/6/2010 in appeal under Sec. - 331 (3) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before Commissioner which was registered as appeal No-02/18 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by Commissioner vide judgment dtd. 9/6/2011. Respondent No. 8 challenged the judgment dtd. 9/6/2011 in second-appeal before Board of Revenue under Sec. -331 (4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which was registered as second Appeal No - 9 of 2010-11. The aforementioned Second appeal was heard and finally allowed vide judgment dtd. 16/9/2015 setting aside the appellate judgment dtd. 9/6/2011, trial court judgment dtd. 17/6/2010 as well as rejected the restoration/ Recall application dtd. 3/9/2003 filed by Gaon Sabha and affirmed the earlier judgment of trial Court dtd. 7/4/1994. Petitioner/ Allahabad Development authority applied for Recall/review against the order dtd. 16/9/2015 which was pending before Board of Revenue as Case No. RES/1699/2016 Computerized Case No. AL20160203001699 at the time of filing of instant petition. Nagar Nigam applied for restoration against the order dtd. 16/9/2015 which was registered as Case No RES/1266/2016 computerized Case No. AL20160203001266 and the same was also pending at the time of filing of instant writ petition. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner/Allahabad Development Authority was filled on 18/2/2017 with laches of 1 year 265 days for the following relief :

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 9/3/2017 entertained the matter and granted interim protection in the matter staying the operation of the judgment and decree dtd. 16/9/2015 passed by Board of Revenue