S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) According to the petitioners plot No. 265 area 2.585 hectares belonged to Arun Kumar, Dhirendra, Makkhan Lal and Brijendra Bahadur who were Bhumidhars thereof; that Arun Kumar and Dhirendra had l/3rd share in the land in dispute; that petitioners through registered sale deed dated 11.2.2000 purchased 1/3 share of Arun Kumar and Dhirendra and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, partition suit was filed being suit No. 53 of 2001 under section 176 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Deputy Collector, Manjahanpur District Kaushambi on 11.5.2001 decreed tine suit and declared the share of the petitioners to be l/3rd. Thereafter proceedings for preparing final decree were started. Lekhpal submitted Kuras in accordance with the preliminary decree and on 14.6.2001 final decree was prepared and on 30.7.2001 possession on the specific portion/kura of the petitioners was delivered to the petitioners. Meanwhile respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Sri Chandra and Mool Chandra purchased l/3rd share of Brijendra Bahadur on 14.5.2001. Thereafter, on 2.8.2001 they filed an application for impleadment in case No. 53 of 2001. A copy of application is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In tire said application no prayer for setting aside the preliminary decree or final decree was made. Deputy Collector rejected tire said application on 21.8.2001 holding that the applicants had not got their names mutated, it was also mentioned in the said order that no explanation for delay was given and agricultural land could be partitioned through partition decree only among recorded tenure holders. Restoration/Review application filed by respondents 4 and 5 was also dismissed on 21.6.2003. Against the said orders revision was filed before Board of Revenue, Allahabad being Revision No. 56 of 2002-03. The Board of Revenue, Allahabad on 14.8.2003 without even issuing notice allowed the revision by holding that:- "Having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and going through the relevant papers on file I think it would be just and proper to give an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist before the Trial Court. In the circumstances the revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside."
(2.) Thereafter orders dated 21.6.2003 and 21.8.2001 were set aside and matter was sent back to the Trial Court for decision afresh after hearing the revisionist. It is not clear as to whether Board of Revenue directed the Trial Court to re-hear the application of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dated 2.8.2001 or proceeding for preparation of final decree was directed to be re-opened. It is evident from the record that order on the application of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dated 2.8.2001 had been passed on 21.8.2001 after giving opportunity of hearing to them hence there was no question of providing further opportunity of hearing to them. As far as re-hearing in the proceeding for preparation of final decree is concerned no prayer for setting aside final decree had been made. In any case even if the said prayer is read in the application of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dated 2.8.2001, it could not be allowed. Under section 52 T.P. Act transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree or order which is passed against his transferor. Even if before passing of trial decree respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had applied for impleadment would not have been necessary to implead them. In this regard reference may be made to the authority of the Supreme Court in B.Z. Khatoon v. N.H. Saheb. 2004 (1) ARC 447 (SC)
(3.) In view of the above I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is utterly illegal and without jurisdiction. As the order passed by Deputy Collector is perfectly in accordance with law hence no useful purpose will be served by sending back the revision to Board of Revenue for deciding the same after hearing both the parties.;