KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the dispute are as under. Suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) was decreed by the trial court by means of an ex parte 4 line cursory judgment dated 24.12.1969. A perusal of the same filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition goes to show that neither there is any reference of the case set up by the plaintiff nor of any evidence on which the plaintiff was placing reliance in support of his case. The judgment only records that document on record and statement of the plaintiff fully proved the case and hence the suit is decreed. It appears that after the said decree was passed, the village was notified for consolidation operations. A time barred objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The matter travelled up to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to record a finding with regard to Gaon Sabha having knowledge about the decree passed in Suit under Section 229 B of the Act and thereafter to decide the question of limitation. In the meantime, Gaon Sabha also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to recall the ex parte decree. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.04.1991 dismissed the objection filed by Gaon Sabha mainly on the ground of the decree passed in suit under Section 229 B of the Act. In the meantime, vide order dated 29.01.2000, trial court allowed the recall application filed by the Gaon Sabha and recalled the ex parte judgment and decree dated 24.12.1969 on the basis of a report submitted by the record room that record of Case No. 1075 said to have been decided on 24.12.1969, is not available. The trial court further recorded a finding that it appears that a forged and fabricated order was prepared to usurp the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. Petitioner went up in appeal against the said order. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner in the form of question and answer obtained from the record room, which went to show that the Suit No. 1075 of 1968 under Section 229 B of the Act decided on 24.12.1969 is entered at serial no. 1648 in the 'goshwara' register. Commissioner summoned the original record from the record room, which was produced by one Onkar Nath Pandey, the Manager of the record room. After perusing the original record, the Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the details of alleged Suit No. 1075 of 1968 is not recorded at serial no. 1648 in the 'goshwara' register, rather another case under Section 5 C, Gauri Shankar Vs. State dated 17.05.1971 is recorded at the said serial number. The Commissioner also analysed the documentary evidence in the form of khatauni of 1356, 1359 and 1360 fasli, wherein the land in dispute is recorded as 'banjar' of Gaon Sabha and the same entries continued after zamandari abolition. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Commissioner held that the judgment dated 24.12.1969 which was the basis of the claim of the petitioner was forged and fabricated and, accordingly, allowed the appeal. The petitioner went up in second appeal, which was dismissed against which a writ petition was filed before this Court. Vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2008, the matter was remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal afresh mainly on the ground that it was wrongly decided on merits in the absence of the appellants-plaintiff (petitioner herein). After remand, the Board of Revenue has again dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the findings of the Commissioner that the alleged judgment and decree dated 24.12.1969, which was the basis of the claim of the petitioner was nothing but a forged and fabricated decree. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the matter was finalised in his favour during consolidation operations and, hence, the proceedings which were initiated on an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. moved by the Gaon Sabha were without jurisdiction. It has further been urged that there were conflicting reports with respect to the 'goshwara' entries and, hence, without making any inquiry into the matter, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.;