(1.) Heard Mr. Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondentGaon Sabha, Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Nagar Palika and Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned standing counsel for the Staterespondents.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's ancestors were alleged to be granted lease by the Zamindar on 18/2/1946 in respect to plot No. 1261/2, area 5.40 hect. On the basis of the aforementioned lease, the petitioner's ancestors were came in possession of the plot in dispute. After the death of the petitioner's ancestors, petitioner came in possession of the plot in dispute. The area in question came under the provisions of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act") and the petitioner remained in possession over the plot in question even after enforcement of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. Since the name of the petitioner was not recorded over the plot in question, accordingly, a suit under Sec. 229B of the U.P. Z.A. L.R. Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner to declare him as bhumidhar of the plot in question in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 122B (4F) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the aforementioned suit, Gaon Sabha and State were impleaded as defendants. The aforementioned suit was decreed ex parte, accordingly, Gaon Sabha filed a recall application and on the basis of the recall application, the ex parte decree has been set aside vide order dtd. 17/7/1998. Against the order dtd. 17/7/1998, petitioner filed a recall application which was rejected vide order dtd. 14/9/1998.
(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 18/12/2009 and granted interim protection to the effect that no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner as well as petitioner was also restrained from transferring the property in dispute or creating any third party interest.