BENI SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certified copy of the order dtd. 4/4/2017 passed in Writ C No. 9879 of 2017 as well as true copy of written statement filed in Suit No. 86 of 1974 at the instance of learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 are taken on record.

(2.) Heard Mr. Ram Sajiwan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. G.S.D. Mishra and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata Nos. 55, 56 arazi Nos. 357, 358 and 359, total area 350 situated at Village Hanspur, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar. In the basic year khatauni, plots in question were recorded in the name of Shiv Ratan Singh (petitioner's father). One Shiv Pal Singh filed a suit under Sec. 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act) for declaration which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1970 before Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The aforementioned suit was decreed exparte vide judgement and decree dtd. 31/3/1973. On the restoration application filed by Shri Somnath Shukla, exparte decree dtd. 31/3/1973 was set aside and the suit was ultimately dismissed vide judgement and decree dtd. 9/12/1998. Appeal filed by Shri Shiv Pal Singh against the judgement and decree of Trial Court dtd. 9/12/1998 was allowed on 26/7/2000, setting aside the judgement and decree of Trial Court dtd. 9/12/1998. Restoration application filed on behalf of Shri Somnath Shukla against the judgement dtd. 26/7/2000 was dismissed on 3/8/2000. The Additional Commissioner ultimately vide judgement dtd. 20/1/2001 allowed the appeal No. 100/115 of 200021, setting aside the judgement and decree dtd. 9/12/1998 passed by Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the plaintiff (Shiv Pal Singh) as bhoomidhar with transferable right. Petitioner challenged the judgement and decree of first Appellate Court dtd. 20/1/2021 by way of second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was registered as second appeal No. 23 of 200001. The aforementioned second appeal was heard and allowed by Board of Revenue vide judgement and decree dtd. 30/3/2007, setting aside the judgement/ decree dtd. 20/1/2001 passed by First Appellate Court. Due to death of plaintiff Shiv Pal Singh, his legal heirs (Rakesh Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh) filed a restoration application on 29/8/2008 before the Board of Revenue. The aforementioned restoration application dtd. 29/8/2008 was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 10/4/2013. Rakesh Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh (legal heirs of Shiv Pal Singh) filed WritB No. 37472 of 2013 before this Court against the order dtd. 30/3/2007 passed by the Board of Revenue. This Court vide order dtd. 15/7/2013 allowed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the Board of Revenue has not framed the substantial questions of law while deciding the second appeal and the matter was remanded back before the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal afresh, after framing substantial questions of law in case it arises and then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue vide subsequent order dtd. 15/4/2015, allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner (Beni Singh), setting aside the order of the 1st appellate court dtd. 20/1/2001 and affirmed the judgement/decree of the trial court dtd. 9/12/1988. Rakesh Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dtd. 15/4/2015 before this Court by means of WritB No. 36360 of 2015 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 19/8/2015. In pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue dtd. 15/4/2015, the Board of Revenue issued a Parawana on 11/4/2016 to the District Magistrate, Kanpur to ensure the execution of the order dtd. 15/4/2015 passed by the Board of Revenue. The reports were submitted in the proceeding. Respondent No. 4 filed an application on 13/12/2016 against which petitioner had filed his objection on 24/4/2017 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has allowed the application dtd. 13/12/2016 filed by respondent No. 4 vide order dtd. 15/6/2017. Petitioner (Beni Singh) challenged the order dtd. 15/6/2017 before the Board of Revenue by way of revision under Sec. 333 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which was registered as Case No. REV/70/18. The aforementioned revision was dismissed under order impugned dtd. 29/4/2024 by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs :