Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Paul, assisted by Sri A.P. Paul, for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Board of Revenue U.P. dated 28.7.1988, deciding Second Appeal Nos. 24 & 25 of 1981 -82 in terms of the compromise, 15.12.2004 rejecting the recall application of the petitioner and 10.11.2005, rejecting the review application of the petitioner.
(2.) PARMA (now represented by re -spondents -4 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 62 of 1976) under section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaration that Smt. Dulari (the petitioner) was not the daughter of Leeladhar and her name was wrongly recorded over the land recorded in khata 193 (consisting plots 5 -Sa (area 2 -13 -0 bigha), 31 -Aa (area 0 -14 -10 bigha), 70 -Sa (area 0 -11 -0 bigha), 115 -Sa (area 0 -11 -0 bigha), 144 (area 5 -0 -3 bigha), 173 (area 1 -17 -5 bigha), 220 (area 6 -10 -15 bigha), 224 -Sa (0 -11 -18 bigha) and 232 -Sa (0 -0 -10 bigha) of village Prakashpur, pargana Dibai, district Buland Shahar. The petitioner contested the aforesaid suit and also filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 110 of 1976), under section 176 of the Act, for partition of her 1/2 share in the land in dispute. Both the suits were consolidated and decided by Assistant Collector Buland Shahar, who by his judgment dated 30.7.1979 held that the petitioner was daughter of Leeladhar and had 1/2 share in the land in dispute. Parma filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 396 and 408 of 1979) from the aforesaid decrees. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Additional Commissioner, who by his judgment dated 16.9.1981, dismissed both the appeals. Parma filed two second appeal (registered as Second Appeal Nos. 24 and 25 of 1981 -82) from the aforesaid decrees, which were admitted by order dated 22.12.1981. In the second appeals, written compromise supported with joint affidavit of Parma, Smt. Dulari and Amar Singh (husband of Smt. Dulari) (in which photographs of these persons were also affixed and identified by their respective counsels) were filed on 30.4.1987. Dr. P. Singh, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 18.5.1987 send the compromise for verification to the Trial Court. The compromise was verified by Trial Court and returned to Board of Revenue U.P. Thereafter, Sri S.K. Lakhtakia, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 28.7.1988 decided the second appeals in terms of compromise.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an application dated 17.1.2003, along with delay condonation application, for recall of the order 28.7.1988. In the affidavit filed in support of the recall application, it has been stated by the petitioner that she had no notice of the second appeals nor engaged any Counsel. Forged compromise was filed, on the basis of which second appeals were decided by order dated 28.7.1988. After death of Parma, the respondents moved an application on 15.12.1999 for mutation of their names over the land in dispute. Notice of this mutation application was published in news paper on 21.12.2002. Then the petitioner filed a written statement in that case, then she came to know about the order dated 28.7.1988 passed in the second appeals. The respondents filed Counter Affidavit in the aforesaid affidavit and stated that notices issued in the second appeals were served upon the petitioner and she put appearance through Sri Manish Chandra Tiwai, Advocate. Later on the compromise along with joint affidavit of Parma, Smt. Dulari and Amar Singh (husband of Smt. Dulari) (in which photographs of these persons were also affixed and identified by their respective counsels) were filed on 30.4.1987, which was send for verification to Trial Court and was duly verified by the parties before Trial Court. On receiving back the compromise, after verification, Board of Revenue U.P. decided the second appeals in terms of compromise by order dated 28.7.1988. The allegations that the compromise was forged document was denied. It has been stated that Smt. Dulari took Rs. 50,000/ - from Parma and settled the dispute with him and voluntarily filed compromise. After such a long time, recall application was mala fide moved. The allegations that notice of the mutation case was published in news paper on 21.12.2002, was denied. In the Rejoinder Affidavit, genuineness of photographs affixed in the joint affidavit has not been denied. The recall application was heard by Board of Revenue, U.P., who by order dated 15.12.2004 held that the compromise was duly verified by Trial Court. The order dated 28.7.1988 was passed in presence of the Counsel for the parties. There is no explanation of inordinate delay of more man 15 years. On these findings, recall applications were rejected.;