U. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. D. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. R. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 2 to 4 and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that his father (Chhanga) was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute and during the consolidation operation, some manipulation was done by one Sri Satya Narain in C.H. Form 45 and thereafter the father of the petitioner filed a Regular Suit under Section 229B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Sri Satya Narain. THE said suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 23.1.1976. Sri Satya Narain, being aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, which was dismissed by the order dated 25.5.1977. During the pendency of the appeal, the possession was given to the father of the petitioner by the Amin over the land in dispute. Sri Satya Narain, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.5.1977, filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the order dated 16.8.1982. During the pendency of the second appeal, Sri Satya Narain executed a sale deed on 17.10.1980, in respect to the land in dispute in favour of his sons Girish Kumar and Kamlesh Kumar, who later on executed the sale deed on 25.8.1986, in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4. Sri Girish Kumar also executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party 2 whose name was also mutated in the revenue record. The petitioner has also alleged that Girish Kumar also prepared an unregistered Will said to be executed by the petitioner and declaring the petitioner as dead got an order dated 23.10.1986 in his favour by which in place of the petitioner, the name of Girish Kumar was mutated. The petitioner has also alleged that his father expired in the year 1982 and his name was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of P.A. 11. The petitioner has also alleged that on his representation, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gonda, passed an order on 31.1.1989 for issuance of parwana/ amaldaramad in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1976. The parwana/ amaldaramad was also incorporated in the namantran bahi but the name of the petitioner was not incorporated in the khatauni by the Leekhpal. The Lakhpal on the approach of opposite parties 2 to 4 submitted a report dated 24.2.2000 before the Sub-Division Officer, Gonda, who by the order dated 10.3.2000 directed the revenue authorities for amaldaramad. The opposite parties 2 to 4, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2000 filed a revision before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The said revision was allowed by the judgment and order dated 25.2.2003. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by opposite party No. 1 has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision against the order dated 10.3.2000, was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as the incorporation of the order in the revenue record is the official duty of the revenue authority as provided in para 39 of the Revenue Court Manual. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Subhana and another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1973 ALJ 375. He further submits that the sale deed executed by Sri Satya Narain was a collusive transfer, which was barred under the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further submits that on the basis of the fraudulent unregistered Will alleged to be executed by the petitioner, Sri Girish Kumar cannot claim any right over the property of the petitioner. He further submits that on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1976, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the possession was delivered to the father of the petitioner in the year 1977. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the order dated 30.1.1989 by which parwana/ amaldaramad was issued was not challenged by Sri Satya Narain during his life time and the present revision was not maintainable.
(3.) SRI A. R. Khan, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has a remedy of revision under the provisions of Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat University v. N. U. Rajguru and others,1987 (Supp) SCC 512 and Kumari Mamta Jauhari v. State of U.P. and another, 1999 (1) AWC 676 (FB) : 1999 (1) UPLBEC 54. He further submits that transferee are bound by a decree or order which is passed in a suit when they have knowledge about the proceedings. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaskirat Datwani v. Vidyavati and others, (2002) 5 SCC 647. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.;