RAVINDRA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Chaurasia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. Indrasen Singh Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent Gaon Sabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 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 claiming cotenancy right in respect to khata No. 762 situated in Village Pakaryari Poorab Patti, Tappa Dhuriya Vijaipura, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobana, Tehsil Tamkuhiraj District Padrauna. In the aforementioned suit petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 1. The aforementioned suit was registered as suit No. 94/97. In the aforementioned suit, one compromise was filed stating that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 as well as defendant No. 1 shall be entitled to one third share each in the dispute khata. The Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 13/7/1999 decided the aforementioned suit on the basis of compromise dtd. 15/7/1998. Against the compromise decree dtd. 13/7/1999, an application dtd. 14/7/1999 was filed on behalf of petitioner (defendant No. 1 of the suit). The restoration application remained pending before the Trial Court and the petitioner was advised to file appeal against the compromise decree dtd. 13/7/1999 accordingly petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and vide order dtd. 7/3/2005, the appeal was allowed setting aside the compromise decree dtd. 13/7/1999. Against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dtd. 7/3/2005, second appeal was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 which was registered as second appeal No. 19 of 200405 before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad. The aforementioned appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 10/7/2012 setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner dtd. 7/3/2005 and affirmed the compromise decree dtd. 13/7/1999. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 19/7/2013 entertained the matter and directed both the parties not to alienate the proper in dispute.