- (1.) S. R. Misra, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment and order of Board of Revenue dated 9-10-1978, Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
(2.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 8 filed. a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the" Act') read with Section 209 of the Act. Their case was that the property in dispute belonged to Bhagwati Singh, petitioner was sister's son of Bhagwati Singh respondent No. 8 was widow of one of the brothers of the petitioner, were entitled to the property owned by Bhagwati Singh as Bhagwati Singh died issueless. It appears that in mutation proceedings regarding the land in dispute, some dispute arose between the petitioner and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and a compromise was arrived at between them. PETITIONER disputed the aforesaid compromise. Respondents contested the suit on the ground that Bhagwati Singh died issueless and petitioner and respondent No. 8 are not sister's son of Bhagwati Singh, it was also pleaded that in the mutation proceedings, the petitioner made ,an admission, which is binding on him. Trial Court dismissed the suit by its order, dated 5-11-1971. Appeal preferred against the said order was allowed by Additional Commissioner on 5-3-1974 but the "revision preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was allowed by Board of Revenue by the impugned order and hence this petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has attacked the impugned order on the ground that that exercising jurisdiction of second Appellate Court, the Board of Revenue is not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact and its order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. He next contended that even on merits, since the judgment and order. of the Board of Revenue is solely based on alleged compromise entered between the parties in mutation proceeding, the same cannot be sustained in law. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has recorded self-contradictory finding and reason for non suiting the petitioner is wholly misconceived, as the claim of the petitioner and respondent No. 8 was that they are legal representatives of Bhagwati Singh and, if the finding is arrived at that, property belongs to Bhagwati Singh, then the heirs of Bhagwati Singh are bound to inherit the same. On the basis of erroneous assumption that since the name of Ram Awadh was also entered, the Board of Revenue wrongly held that the heirs would become co-tenants whereas there was no case of co-tenancy, set up by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. Despite time granted to the learned counsel for the respondents on so many occasions, and due notice, no counter-affidavit has been filed nor any one is present on behalf of the respondents. Thus, this court is deprived of any assistance from the side of the respondents. In view of non assistance from the side of respondents, it is utmost necessary for this court to carefully consider the case of the respondents so that substantial justice may be done to the parties.;