Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.
(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and orders dated 8.11.1982, 20.12.1978 and 6.5.1978 passed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
(3.) The dispute in the present case revolves around one third share of plot of Khata No. 658 situated in village Sirjam, District Deoria. Case of the petitioner is that land in question was in the name of common ancestor Rajjoo, his interest devolved upon his sons Birjoo, Prithvi, Sheo Ratan, Ram Jatan and Rampati son of Prithvi pre-deceased his father. There was no surviving heir of Prathvi. Birjoo, Ram Jatan and Prathvi had one third share each. The petitioner claims himself to be son of Ram Jatan and therefore, he is entitled to one third share of the land in dispute. He further claims that after the date of vesting, he became co-sirdar along with other descendants of Birjoo and Ram Jatan. He has been in joint possession all along. It is further claimed that Shoe Ratan father of the petitioner died when he was hardly one year old. His mother remarried one Chhedi and took the petitioner along with her and, therefore, he was brought up by Chhedi and his mother at Rampur Karkhana. After the death of his mother, he returned to his ancestral village and settled permanently sometimes in the year 1966. After the death of Rajjoo common ancestor, entire land came to be recorded in the name of eldest son Birjoo alone and subsequently it was branches of Birjoo, who continued to be recorded as tenure-holder. Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 instituted a Suit No. 134 of 1968 against Bansraj, Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. under section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration that they were co-tenure-holders of 1/2 share. The petitioner was impleaded as one of the defendant in the said suit and he had asserted that he had one third share in the disputed land. This claim was also contested by the respondent No. 4. However, Bansraj father of respondent No. 5 did not deny his claim. The suit was decreed on 23.6.1969 and the respondent No. 4 was declared to be co-tenure-holder. Against the decree of Trial Court, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which was numbered 627 of 1969, the same was allowed by the learned Commissioner Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur on 5.8.1971 and the decree of the Trial Court was modified. It was held that the petitioner was not son of Sheo Ratan and had no share in the land in dispute. Second appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.8.1971 before the Board of Revenue. However, in pursuance to the decree of the Trial Court, name of the petitioner was recorded as co-sirdar along with respondent Nos. 4 and 6.;