B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE suit was filed by Mahadeo Prasad, Respondent No. 4 under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for declaration of Co -sirdari rights along with Satya Deo and Gokul (Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the plots in dispute) which was substantially decreed by order dated 15 -7 -1970 and against that order the Petitioners preferred a first appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed by order dated 7 -3 -19/2, Second appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 331(4) of the Act was allowed by the judgment and order dated 17 -3 -1978 rendered by the Board of Revenue. It is against the latter order in second appeal that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayer has been made for a writ of certiorari quashing the said order of the Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that in second appeal findings of fact could not have been set aside while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these, Respondent No. 4 Mahadeo Prasad filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the Act for declaration of the co -sirdari rights along with Satya Deo and Gokul (Defendant Nos. 3 and 4) and the suit was contested by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that they were sub -tenants before the abolition of the zamindari and became adhivasis and later on sirdars and that the Plaintiff was not entitled for the declaration sought for. The trial court decreed the suit but the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal of the Defendants, the present Petitioners, and the second appeal filed by the contesting Respondents was allowed by the Board of Revenue. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the Additional Commissioner has recorded findings of tact relying upon the statements of DW 1 Deshraj alias Avadhesh, DW 2 Basdeo and DW 3 Dhaniwa whose evidence were corroborated by the khasra of 1363 fasli as well as the receipts of payment of the land revenue. It has held that the Defendant -Petitioners were continuously in possession after the death of their father Narbada Prasad. No steps were taken by the Plaintiff Respondent No. 4 Mahadeo Prasad to eject the Petitioners within the time prescribed for filing a suit under Section 209 of the Act and further the oral evidence of PW 3 Shyam, Naib Registrar Qanuago was also considered and similarly the statements of PW 1 Mahadeo and PW 2 Purshottam were also considered. It was further held by the Additional Commissioner that even the lease -deed dated 30 -4 -1952 might not have been formally proved but the same was not relevant inasmuch as the possession of the Defendant -Petitioners continued for more than a prescribed statutory period maturing the sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Act. These findings were findings of fact and could not have been set aside or reversed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 331(4) of the Act which was equivalent to Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure.;