RAMA SHANKER Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as Mr. Hari Prasad Singh, Advocate in person who is impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the instant petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording their names on the basis of sale deed dtd. 15/1/1975/ 6/10/1977 executed by Smt. Sumariya in favour of Hari Prasad Singh and others. The aforementioned mutation case was registered as case No. 87/52 before Naib Tehsildar, Meja, Allabahad. The Naib Tehsildar heard the matter and vide order dtd. 13/7/1978 rejected the mutation application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Against the order dtd. 13/7/1978 passed by Naib Tehsildar, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appeal under Sec. 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which was registered as Appeal No. 2013 before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad and vide order dtd. 29/1/1979, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed revision before Commissioner against the order dtd. 13/7/1978 and 29/1/1979 and the reference was sent by Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 7/5/1980 before the Board of Revenue accordingly, reference was registered as reference case No. 299 before Board of Revenue. In the aforementioned reference an order dtd. 7/5/1997 was passed by Board of Revenue by which reference was accepted and order of Naib-Tehsildar as well as Sub-Divisional Magistrate were set aside the as well as the names of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were ordered to be recorded as vendees of Smt. Sumariya. Petitioners filed a restoration application against the order dtd. 7/5/1997 before Board of Revenue and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 18/11/2000 setting aside the earlier order dtd. 7/5/1997 and restored the reference case on its original number. The Board of Revenue vide subsequent order dtd. 1/3/2001 rejected the reference sent by the Additional Commissioner and maintained the order dtd. 13/7/1978 and 29/1/1979. Against the order dtd. 1/3/2001 passed by Board of Revenue respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed review application before Board of Revenue which was registered as Review Application No. 109/L.R.2000-2001. The aforementioned review application was rejected by Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 13/7/2001. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed a second review application to recall the earlier order dtd. 13/7/2001 and 1/3/2001 which was registered as review application No. 261/2000-2001. The Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 21/8/2001 granted interim order staying the earlier order dtd. 1/3/2001. Against the order dtd. 21/8/2001 petitioners filed a writ petition No. 15684 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dtd. 13/5/2005 with the direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the review application of the respondent within a period of two months. The Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 25/5/2006 allowed the second review application filed by respondent No. 3, setting aside the order dtd. 1/3/2001 as well as directed to record the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in place of Smt. Sumariya. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 25/5/2006 passed by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) Civil Suit No. 576 of 1976 filed by petitioners for cancellation of sale deed executed on 15/1/1975 and another Civil Suit No. 944 of 1980 filed by petitioners for cancellation of Sale deed executed on 6/10/1977 are pending before civil Court.