DHAMANI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of his bhumidari rights over Plot Nos. 304 and 575 under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') which was decreed by the Sub-Divisional officer vide his order dated 03.07.1985. It appears that the plots were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha in the revenue records and the decree was passed on the basis of some entries in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records relating to 1364 fasli wherein an order of the Consolidation officer passed in favour of the petitioner had been recorded and on the oral testimony of the Gram Pradhan and the Lekhpal of the village. Subsequently, the Gram Pradhan filed an application dated 12.08.1985 praying for recall of the decree dated 03.07.1985 on the ground that notices in the case registered by the petitioner under Section 229B of the Act, 1950 were not served on the Gram Pradhan and his alleged signatures on the summons were forged and the official seal affixed on the summons was also not the seal of the Gaon Sabha. It also appears from the records that in his application dated 12.08.1985, the Gram Pradhan had also stated that he had never appeared as a witness in the case and some imposter representing himself to be the Gram Pradhan had been produced as a witness by the petitioner. It also appears from the records that a written statement on behalf of the State Government as well as the Gaon Sabha had been filed in the proceedings registered under Section 229B of the Act, 1950 but it was alleged by the Gram Pradhan that the said written statement was a forged copy of a written statement withdrawn from the records of some other case and filed in the case instituted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply to the recall application filed by the Gram Pradhan and also filed an application praying for appointment of an expert to compare the signatures of the Gram Pradhan on the notices issued to him and on the recall application.

(3.) The application of the petitioner for appointment of expert was dismissed by the Sub Divisional officer vide his order dated 11.02.1986 and subsequently the restoration application was also allowed by the Sub-Divisional officer vide his order dated 15.02.1986. While allowing the restoration application vide order dated 15.02.1986, the Sub-Divisional officer himself compared the admitted signatures of the Gram Pradhan with the signatures shown on the summons allegedly served on him and recorded a finding that the two signatures were not identical and there was much difference between them. As a result, the Sub-Divisional officer recorded a finding that notices were not served on the Gram Pradhan and the proceedings were held exparte against the Gaon Sabha. In his order dated 15.02.1986, the Sub-Divisional officer also recorded a finding that the written statement allegedly filed on behalf of the State in proceedings instituted by the petitioner under Section 229B of the Act, 1950 appeared to be manipulated in as much as there were erasers and over writing in the written statement. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional officer allowed the application dated 12.08.1985 filed by the Gaon Sabha, recalled the decree dated 03.07.1985 and restored the case to its original number for decision on merits. Aggrieved by the orders dated 11.02.1986 and 15.02.1986, the petitioner filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi Division, Varanasi which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 08.06.1987. Consequently, the petitioner filed a second revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, i.e., respondent no. 1 which was registered as Revision No. 28 of 1986-87 and was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 16.03.1991. It is pertinent to note that in his order dated 08.06.1987, the first revisional court apart from affirming the findings of the trial court that notices were not served on the Gaon Sabha also held that the admission by the Gram Pradahan of the case of the petitioner was without the permission of the concerned Assistant Collector/Tehsildar and the Gram Pradhan was not empowered to admit the case of the petitioner regarding the disputed plots. The orders dated 15.02.1986, 08.06.1987 and 16.03.1991 have been challenged in the present writ petition.