L. D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) Four revision petitions have been filed against the order of the trial court dated 10-9-1969 in four cases under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. A 5th revision petition has been filed against another order of the trial court dated 10-9-1969 in a case under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. These were forwarded by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur division by his order dated 22-11-1971.
(2.) The facts relevant to these revision petitions are as follows:- Suit No. 391 was filed by Bahore against Ghurpatri in respect of a piece of land measuring 27.960 acres. Suit No. 392 was also filed by Bahore against Salamat Ullah and others. The area of the land involved in this case was 10.784 acres. Suit No. 389 was filed by Raj Kumar, Dukharan and others against Pat Ram and others. The area of the land involved in this case was 6.734 acres. Suit No. 324 was filed by Rupa against Baladin. The area involved in this case was 1 acre. Suit No. 390 was filed by Pat Ram against Lakh Raj in respect of a piece of land measuring 250 acres. In all the suits the Gaon Sabha and the State were impleaded as defendants. Suits Nos. 389, 390, Rs.391 and 392 were decreed ex parte on 8-7-1966. Suit No. 324 was decreed ex parte on 25-7-1966. 5 applications were submitted in all the cases on behalf of the State Government for getting the ex parte order set aside oh 9-9-1966. Inaru the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, and Vakil Ahmad Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sagha also filed applicarons for getting the ex parte decrees set aside. Salamat Ullah defendant in suit No. 392 also filed an application for getting the ex parte decree set aside. The applications of Inaru Pradhan were dismissed in default, and application of Vakil Ahmad and Salamat Ullah were dismissed as time barred by the trial court. As regards the applications filed on behalf of the State Government the trial court held as follows: "That he (D.G.C. (R)) was not legally appointed against by the Collector for the State for that suit and service on him and knowledge to him in his personal capacity will not be a knowledge to the Collector or the State Government because till then no vakalatnama by the Collector was executed in his favour" It, therefore, set aside the ex parte decrees. It is against these orders that revision petitions have been filed by the plaintiffs of the aforesaid suits.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.;