RAM RATAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri M.N. Singh for respondent no. 7.

(2.) In a suit filed under Sec. 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 a preliminary decree was passed on 12.1.1991. During the course of the proceedings for preparation of final decree, the Lekhpal prepared kurras. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed objections against the kurras. The trial court by order dated 29.4.2014 rejected the objections and confirmed the kurras and directed for final decree being prepared accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed an appeal. The appellate court, being of the opinion that the appeal was confined only to kurra allotted to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 whereas the other kurras have not been challenged, dismissed the appeal by order dated 19.7.2014, with liberty reserved in favour of the respondents to file a fresh appeal challenging the correctness of all the kurras. In pursuance of the liberty so granted, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed another appeal before the Commissioner, which has been decided by order dated 21.12.2015 by Additional Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut. The Additional Commissioner has set aside the decree passed by the trial court confirming the kurras on the ground that the objections filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 against the kurras proposed by the Lekhpal were not dealt with by the trial court. Accordingly, the matter has been remanded to the trial court for taking a fresh decision, after considering the objections filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6. Aggrieved by the remand order, the petitioner carried the matter in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. By impugned order dated 8.11.2016, the second appeal has been dismissed by holding that the order dated 21.12.2015 was passed in pursuance of the previous order dated 19.7.2014 granting liberty to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to file a fresh appeal. It has been held that since the said order has attained finality and therefore, the proceedings held in pursuance of the said order cannot be held to be illegal. Accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second appeal has been dismissed on a manifestly illegal ground. It is urged that the correctness and validity of order of remand has not been gone into by the Board of Revenue and thus, the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue is not sustainable in law.