Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.C. Varma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amish Srivastava for the contesting respondent No. 5.
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that a suit under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act between the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 3 to 7 ended into a compromise on the basis of which a preliminary decree dated 26.8.1971 was drawn. The petitioner applied for preparation of a final decree. However, since the area of land was less than 3.215 acre it had to be auctioned. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report regarding the valuation of trees and hand pump standing on the land. The respondent No. 3 filed an objection to the valuation report which was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 7.3.1975. Being aggrieved by the said order respondent 1 No. 3 filed a revision which was also dismissed by the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow on 28.1.1976. The respondent No. 3 challenged the said order I in revision before the Board of Revenue. The revision came to be dismissed in default by the Board of Revenue on 8.4.1980. Thereafter, the record of the case was sent to the Trial Court and after notice to all the parties the Trial Court directed the land to be auctioned. The petitioner being highest a bidder, auction in his favour was accepted vide order dated 15.7.1985. The petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 4087.30 on 16.7.1985 and after necessary formalities the sale certificate was issued to him on 11.9.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was given possession over the land on 7.4.1986 through Advocate Commissioner and mutation was also effected in the revenue record. The Advocate Commissioner after k putting the petitioner in possession over ' the land submitted his report dated 30.4.1986 which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said report was confirmed by the Trial Court on ; 7.5.1986. The Advocate Commissioner has mentioned in his report that the respondent No. 3 was present at the time of delivery of possession but refused to put signature Thereafter, respondent No. 3 moved an application on 11.8.1986 before Board of Revenue for recalling the order dated 8.4.1980 dismissing the revision in default. The said application was contested by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 31.7.1986 allowed the restoration application against which the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue has committed manifest error in condoning the delay inasmuch as the respondent No. 3 had full knowledge to the proceedings and he was present at the time i of delivery of possession which fact has been mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner in his report, it has further been submitted that Board of Revenue has, as a matter of fact, restored in-fructuous proceedings inasmuch as auction sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner long back and he was also handed over the possession of the same, and the revision challenging the valuation report had become in-fructuous.;