- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in revised list no one has appeared on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The dispute relates to the plot Nos. 319, 318/1, 456/1, 456/2, 496, 503, 603/2 and 719/2 situate in village Raghunathpur, Paragana Sikandara, District Allahabad. In the basic year the said plots were recorded as sirdari of the petitioners. During the consolidation operation an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the respondent to delete the name the petitioner on the ground that the plots in dispute were Usar and Banjar, belonging to the Gaon Sabha and were wrongly recorded in the name of petitioners. The said objection was contested by the petitioners by filing counter objection pleading therein that the petitioners had filed Suit No. 275 of 1965 under Section 229-B U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act impleading both the State of U. P. as well as Gaon Sabha as defendants which was decreed by the trial Court by means of ex-parte order dated 6-12-1965. Subsequently, after a lapse of about 7 years an application was moved on behalf of State of U. P. to recall the ex-parte order which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 20-4-1972 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 6-12-1965 was set aside. Against the said order the petitioner filed a revision before Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad who vide order dated 10-10-1972 made a recommendation to Board of Revenue for allowing the revision. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 5-2-1974 accepted the reference made by Additional Commissioner and set aside the order of the trial Court dated 20-4-1972. The Board of Revenue remanded the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the restoration application filed by the State. It has not come on record of the Consolidation Authorities as well as before this Court as to what happened to the restoration application after remand made by the Board of Revenue. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28-1-1975 partly allowed the objection of the State of U. P. against the said order four appeals were preferred. Two appeals were filed by Gaon Sabha and two others were filed by the petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 4-9-1975 allowed the appeal filed by Gaon Sabha whereas appeal filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner approached the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 15-5-1975 dismissed the revision and confirmed the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the judgment and decree passed in suit filed under Section 229-B operated as res-judicata inasmuch as decree was never set aside. IT has further been urged that though the restoration application was remanded back for fresh decision but there is nothing on record to indicate that the restoration application was finally decided and unless it is finally decided and the judgment dated 6-12-1965 set aside the same will continue to operate as res- judicata, and all the three Courts, below have wrongly and illegally allowed the objection without considering the effect of the said judgment and decree. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. All the three Consolidation Courts have not accepted the judgment and decree dated 6-12- 1965 passed in suit of the petitioners as final and res-judicata only on the ground that the Board of Revenue remanded the restoration application to be decided fresh on merits.;