S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The challenge in this petition is the order of the Board of Revenue dated 8.9.1988 by which the Second Appeal filed by one Darpania has been dismissed and the order dated 9.8.2001 by which Restoration Application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
(3.) There appears to be no dispute about the fact that the Suit was filed by respondent No. 2 under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 against Darpania referred above for declaration of her rights on the basis of adverse possession. The suit filed plaintiff-respondents was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 14.4.1983 against which appeal came to be filed before learned Commissioner. During pendency of appeal, Darpania transferred the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners by means of registered sale deed dated 24.1.1984. It is thereafter, the judgement of first Appellate Court was passed and on 10.2.1984, appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed. Against the judgment of first Appellant Court, Darpania filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue in which on 20.3.1984 after admitting the appeal, interim order was also granted in favour of the appellants. It appears that during pendency of second appeal, learned Counsel who had filed second appeal, was elevated to the bench of this Court and it is thereafter, second appeal was dismissed in default on 8.9.1988. Restoration Application was filed after a long period i.e. on 23.8.2000. An affidavit was also filed in support of application in which delay in filing application was explained. The record discloses that no Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party to the recall application but when restoration application was considered fey the Board of Revenue, it was rejected by order dated 9.8.2001. It is these two orders of the Board of Revenue referred above i.e. 9.8.2001 and 8.9.1988 Annexures-(9) and (1) respectively are under challenge in this petition.;