DEEPAK MADHOK Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that property in question was recorded in the name of Smt. Saranga Devi, Ranjeet, Sanjeet, Jagjeet and Smt. Jamuna Devi. Smt. Saranga Devi and others transferred their 1/2 share of the property in question in favour of Dr. Amrit Lal Ishrat (father of petitioner No. 1) and Smt. Bharti Madhok (petitioner No. 2) through registered saledeed dtd. 23/6/1988. Smt. Jamuna Devi executed an agreement to sale in respect to her 1/2 share in favour of Smt. DIshrat. The proceedings under Sec. 122B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act") was initiated against Smt. Bharti Madhok and others which was decided vide order dtd. 11/3/1991 for ejectment and damages. Petitioner No. 2/ Bharti Madhok filed revision against the order dtd. 11/3/1991 which was admitted but no interim order was granted, accordingly, writ petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dtd. 25/3/1991 directing to decide the revision within three months and till the disposal of the revision the dispossession of the petitioners were stayed. The aforementioned revision was ultimately dismissed on 15/5/1991, accordingly, writ petition has been filed by petitioner No. 2 / Bharti Madhok in which interim order was granted on 13/6/1991 staying the operation of the orders dtd. 11/3/1991 and 15/5/1991. A notice under Sec. 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act dtd. 27/6/1991 was issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Varanasi to the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 157A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect to the aforementioned saledeed/ agreement to sale, the property in question should be vested in State Government. Petitioners filed their objection / reply dtd. 21/7/1991 against the aforementioned notice dtd. 27/6/1991 stating that dispute with respect to the aforementioned property is pending before this Court arising out of proceeding under Sec. 122B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and interim order is operating, as such, the notice issued under Sec. 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act cannot be entertained. It has also been mentioned in the objection / reply that the provision under Sec. 157A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will not apply in respect to agreement to sale. It is also specifically mentioned in the objection / reply that vendor of the saledeed do not belong to Scheduled Castes, as such, the notice issued against the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Sub Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 28/10/1992 directed that property in question be vested in State and possession was ordered to be taken from petitioners accordingly. Petitioners filed revision before the Commissioner against the order dtd. 28/10/1992, which was registered as Revision No. 16 of 1992. The aforementioned revision was heard by the Additional Commissioner and operation of the order dtd. 28/10/1992 was stayed. Interim order passed by Additional Commissioner was remained in operation during pendency of the revision. Additional Commissioner vide order dtd. 1/7/1996 dismissed the revision. Petitioners challenged the order dtd. 1/7/1996 and 28/10/1992 before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 71 of 199596. The Board of Revenue admitted the revision and granted interim protection staying the operation of the order dtd. 1/7/1996 and 28/10/1992. The Board of Revenue by final order dtd. 29/11/2007 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 14/12/2007 and stayed the operation of the orders dtd. 29/11/2007, 1/7/1996 and 28/10/1992.