Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard, Sri R.C. Chaturvedi holding brief of Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Proceedings under Rule 115-C of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules were initiated against the father of the petitioners on the ground that he is in unauthorized occupation of the disputed plot. The proceedings were contested by the petitioners' father by filing objection on the ground that Suit No. 403 filed by him under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with regard to the same property was decreed by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 16.2.1979 which has become final. It was further pleaded that the suit was duly contested by Gaon Sabha and the decree was passed after hearing the parties. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30.3.1983 confirmed the notice and directed ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute and also imposed a damage of Rs. 14,040/-. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which was also dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 1.2.1983, against which the petitioner preferred a second revision before the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.9.1984 dismissed the same on the ground that after amendment of 1984 Act the order of the Collector has become final.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that both the Courts below wrongly and illegally ignored the decree passed in suit under section 229-B of the Act in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner ought to have proved the decree by getting original file of the suit summoned. In reply, learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order.;