MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Zafar M. Naiyer assisted by Sri Himanshu Kumar for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh for respondent no. 4; and Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha along with Sri Umang Srivastava for contesting respondent no. 5.
(2.) The brief facts of the case, which are necessary to be noticed for the purpose of deciding this petition, as could be elicited from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as also upon perusal of the record, are as follows:
(3.) The fifth respondent, namely, Ram Shanker, instituted revenue suit No. 46 of 2006 (new No. 181/63/2006-07) in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st class, under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, in which Ram Chandra Milvani, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners 1 and 2, was impleaded as defendant No. 9. The said suit was decreed in part by judgment and order dated 4th November, 2015. Aggrieved by that portion of the order which denied relief to the plaintiff, to the extent prayed for, the fifth respondent (plaintiff in the suit) filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The appellate court found that the suit property was no longer agricultural land and therefore, by its order dated 5th September, 2016, it set aside the entire judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the same afresh after framing an issue as regards jurisdiction of the revenue court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court, the fifth respondent filed a revision before the Board of Revenue by impleading the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Ram Chandra Milvani (since deceased) as respondent No. 10, as also the petitioner No. 1, namely, Smt. Jaya Milvani as his legal heir and representative. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 1st August, 2017 allowed the revision preferred by the fifth respondent on the ground that the plea as regards jurisdiction of the Revenue Court ought to be taken at the first instance and as it was not demonstrated that there had been any declaration under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, it found it appropriate to set aside the order of the appellate court and remit the matter back to the appellate court for fresh decision.;