- (1.) Heard Sri Manish Dev Singh, counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgement and order of Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad (respondent-1) dated 20.05.2013 passed in Second Appeal No. 14 of 2012-13, Ram Ujagir and others Vs. Nand Lal and others and order of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) First, Varanasi (respondent-2) dated 26.04.2013 passed in Appeal No. 6 of 2012 Ram Ujagir and others Vs. Nand Lal and others, and order of Additional Deputy Collector, First, Jaunpur (respondent-3) dated 09.01.2012 passed in Suit No. 72/ 122, Ram Bali Vs. Nand Lal and others, arising out of the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) Ram Bali (now represented by the petitioners) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 72/122) under Section 229-B of the Act for declaring him as the bhumidhar with transferable right in possession of the plots 661 (area 0.053 hectare), 1169-A (area 1.445 hectare), 1169-B (area 0.158 hectare) and 1185 (area 0.065 hectare) situated in village Baragaon, pargana Anguli, tahsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur. In alternative, it has been prayed that in case, Nand Lal and others (respondents-5 to 9) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) be found in possession over the land in dispute then, decree for their ejectment be passed. It has been stated in the plaint that Nepal (father of the plaintiff) was sub-tenant of old plot Nos. 1037/1, 1037/2, 1038, 1070, 1071, , 1078, 1834 and 1835 of which Ram Kadam was the tenant-in-chief, since before the date of vesting. After date of vesting he became adhiwasi on 01.07.1952 and sirdar on 30.10.1954 under the provisions of the Act. In consolidation, Ram Kadam, predecessors-in-interest of Saraswati and others (defendants-2 to 4) raised a dispute in respect of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer Baragaon, by order dated 24.10.1970 held Nepal as sirdar of the land in dispute and directed for deletion of the name of Ram Kadam from it. The consolidation authorities illegally not given effect to the order of Consolidation Officer in the record. The plaintiff, being an illiterate man, on inquiry found that order of the Consolidation Officer was given effect to in respect of only one plot (i.e. 661) in the consolidation record. In July 2001, he came to know about entry in the revenue record, then he asked the defendants to get it corrected but they refused and denied the right of the plaintiff which gave rise to the cause of action for filing of the suit. On these allegations, the suit has been filed on 09.11.2001.;