A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS petition questions the validity of the order of Board of Revenue whereby a Second Appeal filed by opposite party No. 1 has been entertained and an interim order has been granted.
(2.) THE contention raised before this Court is that the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Board is erroneous as no Second Appeal would lie under Sub -section (4) of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, against an order passed in a First Appeal remanding the matter for decision on a preliminary point. The other ground of challenge is, that the questions of law that have been framed by the Board, are founded on a perverse understanding of the issues involved, inasmuch as the question of law which could have been raised was whether the Suit could have been dismissed summarily on a miscellaneous application as being not maintainable without framing any issue and trying the same. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Sri Subodh Kumar submits that if at all, a question did arise, it was this question and which could have been raised by the Petitioner. The Board instead of understanding this has proceeded to determine as to whether the Suit would be maintainable keeping in view the Abadi nature of land in the absence of a declaration under Section 143 of the 1952 Act. The background in which the dispute arose is that the Petitioner claims to have purchased the property from their respective vendors in the year 1989 - 92 where after they have been recorded as co -tenure holders of the land in dispute. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 claim to have obtained sale -deeds on 7.2.2007 from the other co -tenure holders namely Haji Shamshad, Mohd. Raza and Ram Bahadur. Their names do not appear to have been mutated. The opposite party No. 1 filed a Suit for injunction contending that a signboard set up by the opposite party No. 1 over the land in dispute be not removed; a copy of the plaint of the said Suit has been filed as Annexure -1 to the supplementary -affidavit dated 4.9.2011 being Original Suit No. 52 of 2007. An interim injunction order came to be passed in the said Suit that the signboard shall not be removed or altered.
(3.) IN between it appears that the Petitioners, who had purchased 1950 Sq.Yd. of land under the sale -deeds referred to herein above, filed a Suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for partition of the holding in which vendors of opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 were arrayed as Defendants. The said Defendants filed their written statements indicating that they had already sold their share to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3. Consequently, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 were also arrayed as Respondent and inspite of being put to notice, they did not appear therein nor they filed their written statement.;