D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) These three scheduled caste ladies, two being widows, have filed this petition challenging a laconic order dated 10.11,2000 passed by the Board of Revenue. Anang Pal Singh son of Shiv Nath Singh was the original recorded tenure holder of plot No. 272 having an area of 2 bighas 15 biswas. In proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, the aforesaid disputed land was declared to be surplus on 10.10.1975 and after its possession was taken, it vested in the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha allotted the disputed land in favour of the petitioners, who are landless Scheduled caste persons. In the year 1979, at the time of delivery of possession to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 instituted a title Suit No. 93 of 1979 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as Act) claiming to have tide over the disputed land by adverse possession. Though the Gaon Sabha was impleaded as one of the respondents in the suit the petitioners were not impleaded. However, after contest, the said suit was dismissed by order and judgment dated 17th June, 1980. Against. the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an appeal under Section 33 of the Act was preferred before the Commissioner, which was also rejected by a reasoned, order dated 23.7.1990. Not satisfied, the respondent No. 5 preferred a 'Second Appeal No. 66 of the Board of Revenue which also rejected the Second Appeal its. order and judgment dated 8.7.1996. Nevertheless, an application for recall of the order and judgment dated 8.7.1996 was made on 7.9.1996, inter alia, alleging that his counsel was not heard, but no steps were taken for effecting service on the respondents before the Board, thus the application was rejected vide order dated 18.3.1.999. Again another application for recalling the order dated 8.7.1996 and 18.3.1999 was made which was also rejected on 23.9.1996 for non-prosecution. The respondent No. 5 waited for about four years and made yet another restoration application dated 25.10.2000, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 10.11.2000.;