Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel agree for the order which the court has suggested. A suit was filed by Radha Junior High School against Pyare and others, the Petitioners of the present writ petition. In the suit the Plaintiff claimed to be rent free grantee. The Petitioners were in possession hence relief claimed in the said suit was of possession. Suit was decreed but in first appeal the decree was reversed. Thereafter matter was brought to this Court in the form of second appeal No. 913 of 1962. The appeal was dismissed on 31.7.1968 copy of judgment is Annexure -3 -A to this writ petition. In para -1 of the said judgment itself it is mentioned that during pendency of suit Uttar Pradesh government through Collector, Mathura had purchased the property from the original Plaintiff - Radha Junior High School. U.P. Government through Collector, Mathura had filed the said second appeal. In the penultimate paragraph of the said judgment it was observed as follows: "It was urged that the Plaintiff not being trespassers, their possession was that of a licencee. They could file a suit for possession in the civil court as against a trespasser. Therefore, the plaint ought to have been returned for presentation to the proper court. No such plea had been taken in the courts below. No such question arises on the pleadings. The point cannot be entertained in a second appeal."
(2.) Thereafter State of U.P. filed mutation application which was dismissed in default. After about 20 years another mutation application was filed which was allowed against which revision was filed which was allowed and matter was referred to Board of Revenue, Allahabad where it was registered as Reference No. 145 (L.R.) of 1982 -83. The reference was accepted by Board of Revenue on 5.6.1990, copy of which order is Annexure -7 to the writ petition.
(3.) Thereafter this order dated 5.6.1990 was recalled and fresh order was passed by Board of Revenue on 29.9.1995 rejecting the reference. Application to recall the said order was also dismissed on 8.5.1996. Last two orders have been challenged through this writ petition. State of U.P. has purchased the property and this fact was noticed in the earlier judgment of the second appeal also. Accordingly, it is directed that the name of State of U.P. as purchaser shall be mutated in the revenue records. However, merely on the basis of mutation order State/Government of U.P. will not be entitled to evict the Petitioners. They can act only in accordance with the earlier judgment of this Court dated 31.7.1968 passed in the second appeal. They are bound by the said judgment in which they were Appellant. If legally any fresh proceeding can be initiated in a court of law inspite of the above judgment dated 31.7.1968 then the same may be initiated by State of U.P. against the Petitioners subject to every possible/permissible objection which may be raised by the Petitioners. It is reiterated that merely on the basis of mutation State/govt. will not have any right to evict the Petitioner by itself unless it obtains order of eviction from some competent court of law after due contest by the Petitioners. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.;