MANNANUL HAQ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shamim Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5 after issuance of notice to engage another counsel due to death of earlier counsel of respondent No. 5.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that suit under Sec. 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as to the U.P.Z.A.and L.R. Act) has been filed by petitioner in respect to the plot No. 143 (New No. 52) area 2.73 acres situated in village Burhpur, Pargana Amroha, District Moradabad with the allegation that land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ehsanul Haq and Ziaul Haq. It is further stated in the plaint that after partition between India and Pakistan, Ziaul Haq went to Pakistan and his half share in the plot in dispute became Evacuee property. Petitioner's father Ehsanul Haq continued to be recorded over plot in dispute and after death of Ehsanul Haq petitioner remained recorded over the plot in question. The share of the Ziaul Haq was put to auction by the custodian on 11/9/2006 and respondent No. 5 Naseem Ahmad claimed right on the basis of the auction held by the custodian in respect to the share of Ziaul Haq. In the aforementioned suit under Sec. 229B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 12 issues were framed before the trial court and trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties on the basis of issues framed in the suit recorded finding of fact that plaintiff/ petitioner Mannanul Haq son of Ehsanul Haq will be entitled to be recorded over 1/2 share over plot No. 143 area 2.73 acrers, accordingly, the trial court has decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dtd. 1/10/1991 for 1/2 share of plot No. 143. Against the judgment and decree of trial court dtd. 1/10/1991 appeal was filed by respondent No. 5Naseem Ahmad before Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. 3/199293. The aforementioned appeal was allowed vide judgement and decree dtd. 26/11/1992 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial court. Against the judgment and decree of Additional Commissioner dtd. 26/11/1992, second appeal was filed on behalf of petitioner which was registered as Second Appeal No. 15 of 1992-93. The aforementioned appeal was also dismissed by learned Board of Revenue by judgment dtd. 12/6/1995. Review application filed on behalf of the petitioner has also been dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 21/3/1997 hence this writ petition for the following relief: