KISHAN LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.C. Maheshwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.C. Khaibanda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Chandra appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 12.

(2.) In spite of service of notice that the case would be taken up today as unlisted no one has appeared on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

(3.) The dispute relates to Khata Nos. 44 and 199 situate in village Matnatvali, District Muzaffarnagar which was allotted by the Gaon Sabha in favour or the petitioner vide resolution dated 21.6.1965. Proceedings under Sec. 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (for short 'the Act') was initiated against the petitioner on some report of the Lekhpal. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner; Vide order dated 21.11.1970 the said proceedings were cropped and the notices were discharged on the finding that the petitioner was in possession on the basis of allotment made by the Gaon Sabha and was not an unauthorised occupant. Subsequently, the Land Management Committee vide resolution dated 27.12.1975 allotted the same land in favour of contesting respondents. The petitioner initiated proceedings for cancellation under Sec. 198 (4). The Collector respondent No. 3 vide order dated 19.9.1977 rejected the application on the ground that Gaon Sabha has resumed possession of the land from the petitioner ; as such there is no illegality in the allotment. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Additional Collector on 12.5.1978. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 30.10.1979 and the allotment proceedings dated 27.12.1975 was quashed. The revisional order was challenged by the contesting respondents f by means of writ petition No. 10540 of 1980. In the meantime, after the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 30.10.1979 the petitioner filed a suit under Sec. 229-J.B of the Act impleading the State and Gaon Sabha as defendants. The suit was contested by the State as well as by the Gaon Sabha by filling written statement. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.3.1982. The very next day i.e. 18.3.1982 the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and the case was remanded back to the Board of Revenue. The fact that suit of the petitioner t has been decreed could not be brought to the notice of the Court. During pendency or the writ petition the allotment made in favour of the contesting respondents was I cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer. J This fact was also not brought to the notice j of the Court while deciding the writ petition. On remand made by this Court, the Board of Revenue reopened the proceedings and dismissed the revision vide impugned order dated 8.4.1985.