Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 against the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The first appeal was also dismissed. A second appeal was filed by the respondents 1 to 4. It appears that during the pendency of the second appeal a notification was issued by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut resuming the land from the Gaon Sabha in exercise of power under Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and vesting it in the Ghaziabad Development Authority. It appears however that this subsequent fact about resumption could not be brought on the record in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the second appeal was allowed without impleading the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The judgement and decree of both the courts below were set aside by the Board of Revenue and the case was remanded for fresh decision to the trial court. The respondents 1 to 4 then filed an application for review in which it was prayed that the suit has neither been decreed nor dismissed in the second appeal and that the operative part of the order of the order of the Board of Revenue should be read to the effect that the appeal be allowed and the suit decreed. The Board of Revenue by a very strange order dated 16.6.1992 allowed the review application in the following terms: "This is a review application against the judgment dated 26.2.1992. 2. Heard the learned counsel and learned D.G.C. It is contended that the second appeal was allowed and the order for decreeing the suit has not been passed. 3. The suit is either decreed or dismissed. Earlier suit was dismissed by the courts below and the second appeal was allowed and those judgments were set aside. In this sense the application is allowed. The review application is disposed of accordingly."
(2.) The effect of this order is that the suit of respondents 1 to 4 stood decreed. Such an order could not at all have been passed by the Board of Revenue because it amounts entirely to the modification of the decree itself for which neither new grounds had been made out nor any reasons have been given by the Board of Revenue.
(3.) The present petition has been filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority challenging both the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 26.2.1992 and 16.6.1992. The ground is that after notification of resumption the land had ceased to vest with the Gaon Sabha Makanpur and had vested in the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which, therefore was a necessary party in the second appeal. Learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench in 2002 (1) A.W.C. 521 Likhi Ram alias Moola and another v. State of U.P., and others in which although between different parties the notification for resumption, which is involved in the present writ petition has been up held. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon another judgement of this Court in which in similar circumstances the order of the Board of Revenue in the second appeal was quashed on the ground that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had not been impleaded as a party in the appeal. Copy of that order dated 4.10.1993 in Writ Petition No. 9314 of 1991 Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Board of Revenue and others has been annexed with the writ petition. The Ghaziabad Development Authority was therefore a necessary party.;