Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 (the contesting respondents) and the petitioners are co -sharer of plot Nos. 379 and 376. Plot No. 379 is adjacent to road and plot no. 376 is at a distance from the road. The contesting respondent filed a suit for partition under section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (the Act). In this suit a preliminary decree was passed on 16.4.1975 giving half share to the parties. This decree has become final. There is no dispute regarding the shares of the parties. Subsequently, proceedings for preparation of final decree were started and Kurras were prepared on 10.7.1975. The petitioners filed an objection which was allowed on 31.8.1976. Thereafter Kurras were again prepared on 30.3.1977 and Plot No. 379 was divided into two portion and both the portions were adjacent to road. The Trial Court accepted the Kurras on 14.4.19/7. The contesting respondent filed an appeal which was allowed on 4.10.1978 and the matter was remanded for re -decision. The Trial Court by means of order dated 24.6.1980 accepted the Kurras which was prepared on 10.7.1975. The petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed on 10.6.1981 and case was remanded back. The Appellate Court held that Kurras prepared on 10.7.1975 were already rejected and as such either Kurras prepared on 30.3.1977 may be accepted or if the Trial Court was not satisfied then the order for fresh Kurras could be prepared. The contesting respondent filed an application for spot inspection. It was rejected on 29.4.1982. The contesting respondent filed a revision which was dismissed on 20.10.1982. Thereafter the Trial Court re -considered the case on 14.9.1983 and accepted the Kurras prepared on 30.3.1977. The contesting respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed on 9.10.1985. The contesting respondent filed second appeal which was allowed on 3.9.1993 and the matter was remanded, hence the present writ petition. I have heard Sri M.K. Gupta, Counsel for petitioners and Sri S.C. Verma, Counsel for contesting respondents. There is no dispute between the parties regarding Kurras of Plot No. 376. The dispute is regarding Plot No. 379. This plot is adjacent to the road and is valuable land. It is also not disputed that both the parties should be given Kurras adjacent to the road. The Kurras that was prepared on 10.7.1975 had given the entire land adjacent to the road to the contesting respondent and as such this was rightly rejected by the Court below. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has accepted the Kurras that was prepared on 30.3.1977 by which both the parties were given Kurras adjacent to road. The contesting respondent was given, southern, side as there was his boring. There was nothing wrong in the Kurras that were prepared on 30.3.1977. They were accepted by the Trial Court and first Appellate Court. Unless there was illegality in the orders dated 14.9.1983 and dated 9.10.1985 they could not be set aside by respondent No. 1 in the second appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 allowed the appeal mentioning that there is violation ofR.131 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, but how thisR.has been violated had not been stated. There is nothing to show that in the Judgment or on the record of the case that the petitioners have been given more valuation land adjacent to the road. Unless there was such finding or material on record to show the orders could not be set aside. In view of this respondent No. 1 committed illegality in remanding the case. The order dated 3.9.1985 is hereby quashed and the order of first Appellate Court dated 9.10.1985 is upheld. With these observations the writ petition is allowed.;