R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.1.1992 passed by the respondent No. 1. Prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute has also been made.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the dispute relates to plot No. 680 measuring about 4 acres situated in village Khera Heloo, pargana and district Etawah, for short 'the land in dispute'. According to the petitioners, the land in dispute was acquired by their father Megh Singh from the then Zamindar Ajodhiya Nath Tandon. It is stated that the relations of Narain Singh, the Pradhan of the village and the petitioners were strained. Consequently, Narain Singh started proceedings against the father of the petitioners under Section 115B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of the land in dispute. During pendency of the said-proceedings, father of the petitioners died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives, who were after his death substituted in his place. In the said case, parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after going through the material on the record, held that the petitioners were Sirdars of the land in dispute and directed their names to be recorded in place of their father in the revenue papers vide order dated 22.9.1955. Thereafter, it was on 5.9.1968 that a notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued wherein the land In dispute was also included and declared as forest land. As soon as the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid notification, they challenged the validity of the same by filing objection, before the Forest Settlement Officer. They have also produced relevant evidence before him in support of their case ; but the Forest Settlement Officer dismissed their objection. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge, Etawah, who was the appellate authority under the Act. The District-Judge after hearing the parties and after perusing the record was pleased to allow the appeal by his Judgment and order dated 4.1.1973 in favour of the petitioners and directed to exclude the land in dispute from the forest land. After the order was passed by the District Judge, the petitioners have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue papers. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an objection against the petitioners' application. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in the said proceedings sent for the report of Naib Tehsildar, which was submitted on 10.7.1973 in favour of the petitioners. The names of the petitioners were also directed to be mutated in the revenue papers and possession over the land in dispute was directed to be handed over to the petitioners by the forest department by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 27.9.1973. The forest department thereafter filed a restoration application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for recalling the order dated 27.9.1973. The said application was objected to by the petitioners and was ultimately dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 6.3.1974. In compliance with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue papers over the land in dispute and they were also put in actual possession of the same. The forest department instead of filing any appeal or revision against the order dated 6.3.1974, filed another restoration application, in which the order dated 6.3.1974 was not challenged. The Sub-Divisional Officer acting illegally, allowed the second restoration application, set aside the order dated 27.9.1973 but the order dated 6.3,1974, referred to above remained intact. The petitioners challenged the validity of the order dated 21.2.1975, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after hearing the parties made a reference to the Board of Revenue recommending in favour of the petitioners for setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Board of Revenue after hearing the parties and perusing the material on the record accepted the reference and allowed the revision by its judgment and order dated 27.3.1980. It was held that second restoration application was legally not maintainable and the order dated 6.3.1974, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer became final between the parties. The order passed by the Board of Revenue became final. However, one Sri Naraln Singh, Pradhan of the village filed another application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for setting aside the order passed by him in favour of the petitioners. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners and was ultimately dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 9.10.1975.;