BABULAL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Misra, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment and order of Board of Revenue dated 9-10-1978, Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 8 filed. a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the" Act') read with Section 209 of the Act. Their case was that the property in dispute belonged to Bhagwati Singh, petitioner was sister's son of Bhagwati Singh respondent No. 8 was widow of one of the brothers of the petitioner, were entitled to the property owned by Bhagwati Singh as Bhagwati Singh died issueless. It appears that in mutation proceedings regarding the land in dispute, some dispute arose between the petitioner and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and a compromise was arrived at between them. PETITIONER disputed the aforesaid compromise.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has attacked the impugned order on the ground that that exercising jurisdiction of second Appellate Court, the Board of Revenue is not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact and its order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. He next contended that even on merits, since the judgment and order. of the Board of Revenue is solely based on alleged compromise entered between the parties in mutation proceeding, the same cannot be sustained in law. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has recorded self-contradictory finding and reason for non suiting the petitioner is wholly misconceived, as the claim of the petitioner and respondent No. 8 was that they are legal representatives of Bhagwati Singh and, if the finding is arrived at that, property belongs to Bhagwati Singh, then the heirs of Bhagwati Singh are bound to inherit the same. On the basis of erroneous assumption that since the name of Ram Awadh was also entered, the Board of Revenue wrongly held that the heirs would become co-tenants whereas there was no case of co-tenancy, set up by the petitioner.