Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abai Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The predecessors in interest of the respondent Ram Lal had filed a complaint against the patta which was granted in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioner, Late Banshi Lal.
(3.) The application for cancellation of the patta was rejected on 12.12.1996. However, the revision filed against the order dated 12.12.1996 was allowed on 3.3.1998. When a revision was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.3.1998, the Board of Revenue on 3.4.1998 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. However, on 16.1.1999, the Additional Collector, though had held that the applicant who had applied for the cancellation of the patta of the petitioner himself had no right in the land, cancelled the patta against which Banshi Lal the predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner being Revision No. 401 of 1999, which was allowed and the matter was again remanded back to the Additional Collector for readjudication. The respondent, Ram Lal filed a revision being Revision No. 140 of 1998-99 against the order dated 15.6.1999. During the pendency of the revision, the predecessor in interest of the respondents, Ram Lal died on 7.8.2001 and a substitution application to bring on record the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Lal was filed in the Revision No. 140 of 1998-99 which was ultimately allowed on 8.4.2003 by the Board of Revenue. This order dated 8.4.2003 had been filed along with the counter affidavit at page-27. Thereafter, the revision as was filed by the respondent Ram Lal was dismissed on 7.5.2003 against which a review was filed by his legal heirs and representatives namely, Raja Ram and Ram Chandra.;