PITAMBER Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.7.1997, whereby it has remanded the case to the trial court to decide the rights of the parties on merits.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners instituted Suit No. 4 of 1995 on 3.8.1995 in respect of the properties relating to village Shamaspur Panju, Pargana and Tahsil Sahaswan, district Budaun and Suit No. 5 of 1995 in respect of properties of village Yahiyapur, Pargana and Tahsil Sahaswan, district Budaun under Section 22B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer against Smt. Hira Devi alleging that she had remarried with Siya Ram. The petitioners being brothers of Bihari, after remarriage of Smt. Hira Devi succeeded to the rights of Bihari. The notices were issued to Smt. Hira Devi. The summons were returned unserved. The notices were sent by registered post but neither the envelope nor acknowledgment due were received back.

(3.) Smt. Hira Devi before the institution of the suit by the petitioners on 3rd August, 1995, had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on 29th June, 1995. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application before the trial court that Smt. Hira Devi had executed the sale deed in their favour and they should be impleaded as parties. The trial court rejected the application. It was held that the service of the notice against Smt. Hira Devi was sufficient and proceeded to decide the suits ex parte. On 11.3.1996, the trial court passed ex parts decree declaring the petitioners as Bhumidhars of the land in suit. Against the aforesaid decision, Hira Devi and the transferees from Hira Devi. i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner on 18th March. 1996 on the finding that the notice against Smt. Hira Devi was sent and as she did not appear in the suit, there was no error in the decree passed by the trial court. The appeal of the transferees was not held to be maintainable as they were transferees from Hira Devi. Against the said decision respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has allowed the revision holding that the transferees had a right to contest the case. Their applications were wrongly rejected by the trial court. Respondent No. 1 directed that the case be decided after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 6 to 8.