B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Shri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri A.K. Srivastava holding brief of Shri Amresh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (J) Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the averments of the writ petition, are that the original tenure holder of the agricultural holdings one Bhoop executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question Khasra No. 242/291 area 2.75 acres. Bhoop died on 18.9.1983 after his death, the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation of name. The mutation case was decided on 2.7.1993 and the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded over the plots in dispute. After the mutation in favour of the petitioner he also executed a sale deed of Khasra No. 45 and 46 in favour of Smt. Heera Kali and a sale deed of Khasra No. 71 in favour of one Shri Vasudeo. Thereafter the land was recorded in the name of the purchaser. It is stated that one Khem Karan was recorded through PA-11 on 20.10.1983 over the land purchased by the petitioner. Khem Karan took a loan from U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi and Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. and mortgaged Khasra No. 243/291 area 2.75 acres on 17.9.1986. Accordingly recovery proceedings were started against Khem Karan and thereafter the Bank put the plot in question to auction and through auction sale deed dated 29.4.1993 it was allotted in favour of one Ram Singh and the sale was also confirmed. Ram Singh submitted an application for recall of the order dated 2.7.1993 and for recording his name in the revenue records. On this application the Naib Tehsildar recalled the order dated 2.7.1993 through the order dated 22.5.1998 and the name of Ram Singh was mutated and recorded in the revenue records over Khasra No. 243/291. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.1998 the petitioner filed appeal No. 36 (Mool Chandra and others v. Ram Singh and others) under section 210 of the Land Revenue Act (Mool Chandra and others v. Ram Singh and others) before the S.D.M. Powayan, Shahjahanpur. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 8.9.1998 against which the petitioner filed revision on 11.9.1998. It is further stated that during the pendency of appeal the Tehsildar, Powayan passed an order on 19.5.2003 for recording the name of Ram Singh over the disputed land. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for recall of the orders dated 12.5.2003 and 19.5.2003 which was dismissed by the Tehsildar on 28.7.2005. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2005 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly being Revision No. 131 of 2005 (Moolchandra and another v. Ram Singh) . During the pendency of this revision, it is stated that Ram Singh sold the property to Balbeer Singh and Nirmal Singh. Balbir Singh and Nirmal Singh then filed an application for mutation of their names over the property in question. Thereafter, after the death of Nirmal Singh, Balbir Singh and legal heirs of Nirmal Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Angoora and Smt. Guddi through a sale deed dated 3.4.2012 and thereafter they applied for mutation of their names in the revenue record. It is also stated that against the sale deed executed by Ram Singh in favour of Balbir Singh and Nirmal Singh, the petitioners filed objections under Rules 285(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 which were rejected by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly on 8.4.1994, against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal on 18.9.1995 and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer confirmed the sale in favour of Ram Singh on 10.2.1997. The petitioners are also stated to have filed original suit no. 547 of 1994 and also prayed for injunction. The Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the injunction application on 6.7.1998 against which the petitioner filed misc. civil appeal no. 6/99 which was dismissed by the appellate court against which the petitioner filed W.P. No. 64268 of 2012. It is stated that the said writ petition is still pending and the High Court directed that the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute shall not be disturbed and no third party right shall be created without the leave of the court.;