S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition are the orders passed by the respondents 3, 2 and 1 dated 15.7.94, 30.10.92 and 1.7.92 respectively.
(2.) There appears to be no dispute about certain factual aspects which can be summarised as thus. In the suit under section 229-B/176 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act petitioner's right/share to the extent of seven Biswa out of total area 1-6-0 of Plot No. 4324 situated in the municipal limit of Nagar Palika Parishad Meerut was decided by the judgment and decree of the competent Court on 5.5.86. Petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court with a prayer that on getting deposit of 400 times of the land revenue of the entire area of plot No. 4324, referred above, the land be released in petitioner's favour and thus final decree be prepared accordingly. It appears that on one ground or the other disposal of that application prolonged and thus on 13.12.91 petitioner moved another application before the Trial Court with a prayer that she has become old and as the matter is being delayed, she may not be able to get advantage of decree in her favour and thus she is withdrawing her claim as was laid by her under Rule 159-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R., Rules vide application dated 5.5.86 and now land be permitted to be auctioned between the parties to which the opposite party also may not have any objection and it will be in accordance with law. On this application Trial Court passed order on 1.7.92 by which he directed that the land be auctioned between the parties. Against the order passed by the Trial Court appeal was filed by the respondent No. 7 which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 by order dated 30.10.92 and it is thereafter respondent No. 7 filed second appeal before the respondent No. 1 and it is at this stage petitioner preferred revision against the order of the Trial Court. Respondent No. 1 took up the revision and appeal together and dismissed the same by judgment dated 15.7.94. It is thus three judgments/orders passed by the respondents 3, 2 and 1 dated 15.7.94, 30.10.92 and 1.7.92 respectively are under challenged before this Court.
(3.) Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri K.R. Sirohi, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent No. 7 who happens to be contesting party.;