RAN VIJAI SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State -respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 03 of 2003 -04 (Raghuwar vs. State of U.P.and others) and order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Appeal No. 24 of 1997 (Smt. Batto vs. Raghuwar and others). Vide order dated 30.10.2003 the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed Appeal No. 24 of 1997 filed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.1996 passed in Suit No. 40 of 1995 -96 filed under section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act) after setting aside the order dated 28.12.1996 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and remitted the matter before him for deciding the case on each and every issues after providing opportunity of hearing/ to adduce evidence etc. The petitioners have filed second appeal that has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent no. 6 has filed Case No. 40 of 1995 -96 under section 229 B of the Act in which the trial court has decided four preliminary issues and held that the suit itself is not maintainable. Against that judgment an appeal was filed. Before the appellate court it was argued that the appeal is barred by time and the delay has wrongly been condoned. The appellate court held that appeal is within time and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 28.12.1996. Against this judgment second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue and before the Board of Revenue where only question of limitation was raised. Learned Member, Board of Revenue refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal taking note of the fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal keeping in mind that ultimately substantial justice is to be done to the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that apart from limitation other points have also been raised but the same have not been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue. There is no affidavit of the counsel who has argued the second appeal endorsing the stand taken by the petitioner's counsel in this writ petition and there is nothing on record to indicate that those points have been taken and pressed and the court below has not taken into consideration. while dismissing the second appeal.;