TUFANI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, holding the brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the staterespondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Sec. 229B of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act"), was filed by father of petitioner in respect to plot No. 192 (New Nos. 24M, area .06 decimal, 25M, area .02 decimal, 30M, area .03 decimal), before the SubDivisional Officer which was registered as Case No. 244/232/353/90. In the aforementioned suit, issues were framed before the trial court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The trial court/S.D.O. vide judgment and decree dtd. 23/3/1998 decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the plaintiff as Bhumidhar of the plot in question. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dtd. 23/3/1998, an appeal was filed by the father of the contesting respondent No. 2 before the Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No. 49/35/G1998. The aforementioned appeal was heard finally by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which was allowed vide judgment dtd. 17/10/2002, setting aside the order of the trial court dtd. 23/3/1998. Against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner dtd. 17/10/2002, second appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Second Appeal No. 8/200203. The Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 13/11/2007, dismissed the second appeal for non prosecution. Against the dismissal of the second appeal for non prosecution, a restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay was filed on 23/3/2009 on behalf of the petitioner which has been rejected as time barred under the impugned order dtd. 15/7/2009. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief :

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 16/9/2009 entertained the matter and directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to possession over the land in dispute.