AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pandey for Respondent No.13.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 8.1.2010 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 29.9.2011 in proceeding arising out of a Suit for partition under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Their contention is that the respondent No.13 had absolutely no locus to contest the matter even though the said respondent was present through a Caveat in the Suit which has been instituted on 19.12.2009. It is urged that strangely enough without there being any compromise between the plaintiff and the other co-tenure holders, the Suit was sought to be decreed on the basis of an alleged compromise which has been recorded in the order dated 24.12.2009 that was obtained on gun point. The submission is that the compromise was not a valid compromise and was also under duress. It is, therefore, urged that the order was absolutely erroneous in law and the same ought to have been set aside by the Board of Revenue which it has refused to do so on the ground that no such application for setting aside the compromise was made before the concerned court itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were undertaken for contempt as well before the Board of Revenue as the opposite party had violated the terms of the interim order that has been passed therein and they continued to raise constructions unabated without the property being partitioned finally in the proceeding aforesaid. Sri Pandey for the respondent No.13, on the other hand, alleges that the petitioners are now trying to take a different stand by raising pleas that were never raised before the trial court where the decree came to be passed and, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the revision. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have also been heard. It appears that in a Suit for partition filed by the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 24.12.2009 by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of a compromise that was allegedly entered into by the parties, who were physically present before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 23.12.2009 as recited in the said order. Consequently, a decree was drawn up on the strength of the said compromise on 8.1.2010.
(3.) THE petitioners appear to have lodged a complaint and also moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the basis whereof a criminal case has been registered on the allegation that the said alleged compromise was entered into and got signed forcibly under duress in the circumstances as indicated in the application aforesaid. On the very same allegation, the petitioners approached the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioners did not raise any such plea before the trial court itself where the said proceedings were recorded.;