B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) BY the present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the orders dated 28.2.1975 and 6.8.1970 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Addl. Commissioner respectively are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari.
(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were given Chak No. 497 measuring 10 bight 18 biswa and 11 biswansis. The Petitioners had 1/2 share and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had remaining 1/2 share. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 executed a sale deed on 22.10.1964 in favour of one Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 for an area of 4 bight only and he executed another sale deed on 25.11.1964 in favor of the Petitioners for his remaining share of 1 bight 9 biswa and 5 1/2 biswansis. The mutation was not allowed in favor of Respondent No. 6. The vendors Kailash Narain and Satya Narain, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a suit Under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) for division of their shares against the Petitioners. Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 was impleaded as a Performa Defendant. This suit for division was contested by the Petitioners alleging that sale deed in favor of Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 was illegal and void and was hit by Section 168A of the Act inasmuch as the Petitioners were co -tenure holders along with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, hence if any sale deed was to be executed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it must have been in favor of the Petitioners only as they were holding the plot contiguous to the fragment, and the suit was not maintainable as they have already sold their shares. The sale deed being illegal the Plaintiffs were liable to adjustment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha and the State. Another suit Under Section 229B for declaration of bhumidhari rights was filed by the Petitioners in respect of 4 bight only sold in favor of Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 as the sale deed in favor of Shyam Lai Respondent No. 6 was illegal and void and the Petitioners alleged that they became bhumidhar in respect of the entire area of the Chak. - The suit was contested by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who denied the Petitioner's claim and alleged that the suit of the Petitioners was liable to be dismissed and that the suit filed for partition by them was liable to be decreed. Both the suits were Consolidated and tried together.
(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit for partition filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and decreed the suit of the Petitioners, whereas the Additional Commissioner allowed their appeals holding them to be entitled to partition of 4 bight area and directed the preliminary decree to be prepared by the judgment and order dated 6.8.1970 and by the judgment dated 28th February, 1975 the Board of Revenue dismissed the Petitioner's Second Appeal. Against these two orders the present petition has been filed.;