- (1.) I have heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, for the contesting respondent nos. 9 to 13, Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan for respondent nos. 4 to 8, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following was passed on 7.9.2015: "It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act. "
(2.) On the said point, the judgement was reserved. While dictating the judgement, I found that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was wholly misconceived. The writ petition does not arise out of proceedings under sections 33/39 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (the CH Act). It, in fact, arises out of a suit for partition under section 176 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (the ZA Act), and is directed against the orders dated 31.10.2013 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby he has directed amaldaramad of the judgement and decree passed in the suit under section 176 of the ZA Act, which was decreed on 22.12.1985. An application was filed on the ground that although the decree in the suit for partition had been passed, and had become final, yet the amaldaramad of the same had not been incorporated in the revenue records.
(3.) The court, after examining the record, passed an order on 31.10.2012, directing that the judgement and decree be incorporated in the revenue records and the necessary amaldaramad was directed to be made. This order has been affirmed in revision by respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 5.6.2015. On an earlier occasion this Court vide order dated 27.7.2015 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original record of Suit No. 151 of 1983, which was a suit for partition and wherein the order dated 22.12.1985 had been passed, amaldaramad whereof has been directed by the order impugned. This original record was produced by the learned Standing Counsel, and I have perused the same. The contention of the petitioner on the earlier occasion was that although the decree had been passed, the contesting respondents never deposited the requisite court fees/stamps and, therefore, the final decree could not be drawn or incorporated in the revenue records. However, on examination of the original record, it is clear that the stamps were duly furnished on 5.9.1986. In such view of the matter, the final decree has attained finality. It is settled law that once an order has been passed by the revenue courts, which entails modification or incorporation in the revenue records, it is the duty of the concerned court to issue a parwana amaldaramad in this regard. In the instant case, it is established on record that the trial court had decreed the suit for partition, but no parwana amaldaramad was actually issued.;