Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Triveni Shanker for the private respondent Nos. 3 to 7. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) The brief facts of this case are that in the year 1996 the petitioner filed suit No. 25 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act before the Assistant Collector, Dhampur, District Bijnor with the prayer to pass a decree for declaration that the petitioner is the Bhumidhar of plot No. 1 in question measuring 8 Bighas 18 Biswas. The trial court framed preliminary issue as to whether in view of the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short Act of 1950) and Displaced. Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short Act of 1954) the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. After recording a categorical finding that the plot in dispute was an evacuee property which was transferred by the Government of India in 1963 in favour of Jivan Das and Kripa Ram and thereafter by successive transfers to the respondents and no objections to the same had been raised by the father of the petitioner, who was alive till 1980, the preliminary issue was decided holding that the suit would be barred under Section 28 and 46 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and Section 36 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was allowed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 22.6.1998 on the ground that whether the entire plot had been transferred or not was a question of fact which ought to have been decided by the trial court. The findings of fact recorded by the trial court were, however, not set aside by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said order the private respondents filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by order dated 7.5.2004. The plaintiff-petitioner has thus filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 7.5:2004 passed by the Board of Revenue and has further prayed that his suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act may be decided on merits.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not find it to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;