LALLOO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners challenging the validity of the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 06 of 2002-2003 (Dashrath and Ors Vs. Panna Lal and Ors) whereby the second appeal filed by respondent nos. 7 to 11 was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur as well as order dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector /Upziladhikari, Gyanpur, Badohi were set aside.

(2.) The relevant facts for consideration in the present case are; that plot no. 47 having area of 2 bighas situate in Village Bhatpura, Tehsil Aurai, District- Sant Ravidan Nagar is the disputed land and said land is also part of Khata No. 40. The mother of the plaintiffs-petitioners namely Smt. Kalawati Devi and defendant -respondent no. 12 Panna Lal s/o Lalloo Yadav executed a registered sale-deed dated 10.7.1970 in favour of Ram Pyare Singh (father of respondent nos. 2 to 5) and Lal Pratap Singh, (father of defendant respondent no.6). On the strength of said sale-deed, the names of Ram Pyare Singh- father of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Lal Pratap Singh- father of respondent no.6, were mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, Shiv Ram Singh and others (Sons of Ram Pyare Singh and Late Lal Pratap Singh respondent nos. 2 to 6), executed a registered sale-deed dated 11.2.1988 in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 11 (Dashrath & Ors), who got their names mutated in the revenue record on the strength of said sale-deed.

(3.) The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit on 14.6.1988 being Suit No. 293 of 1989 under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act before the Assistant Collector/Upziladhikari, Gyanpur at Badohi, praying that decree be passed declaring the plaintiffs/petitioners and defendant-respondent No.12 (Panna Lal) as bhumidhar of the land in dispute and the sale-deed executed by their mother and their brother Panna Lal (respondent no.12) be declared to be a void document on the ground that on the date of execution of the said sale-deed, the plaintiffs were minors and said deed has been executed without taking prior permission from the District Judge in terms of the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1956").