RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead concerned gaon sabha as respondent no. 4 to the writ petition and serve the copy of the writ petition to Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the concerned gaon sabha during the course of the day.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. While assailing the impugned order dated 8.10.2012 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bijnor in case no. 16/2010 -11 (Imrat Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Muradabad Division, Muradabad in revision no. 72/2012 -13 (Raghuveer Singh Vs. Gaon Sabha and Others), learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were declared bhumidhars of the land in dispute vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1967 in case no. 33 filed under section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act') and that order could not be recalled by the Sub Divisional Officer in a suo motu proceeding taking shelter of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 47176 (Dinanath Vs. State of U.P.). In his submissions, in the aforesaid judgment, there is no direction to set aside the decree passed by the competent court in a regular proceeding and that judgment only restricted to the fake entries in the revenue records. In his further submissions, since the petitioners' names were recorded on the basis of judgment and decree dated 18.3.1967, therefore, this could not be set aside in such manner. It is further contended that the revisional court has also erred in dismissing the petitioners' revision against the order dated 8.10.2012.
(3.) PRIMA facie, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Matter requires scrutiny. Issue notice.;