Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate representing respondent no. 2.
(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 instituted Case No. 47 of 1996 under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') against the petitioners as well as the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 6 to 9 praying for a decree declaring him a Bhumidhar of the suit property. The claim of respondent no. 2 was based on entries in CH Form-2A, CH Form-11 and CH Form-23 prepared during the consolidation operations held in the village under Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') which showed the father of respondent no. 2 as Bhumidhar of the suit property. The Trial Court i.e. Additional Deputy District Magistrate, Etah vide his judgment and order dated 15.6.1996 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners on the ground that the suit property was recorded as Banjar in CH Form-45 and the entries in the consolidation record regarding the name of the father of the petitioners were suspicious. Further, findings were recorded by the Trial Court that long time had lapsed since consolidation proceedings were over in the village and respondent no. 2 had not presented his claims within time. In his judgment dated 15.6.1996, the Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the suit property was allotted on lease to the petitioners as well as the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 6 to 9 and they were in possession of the same. On the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court dismissed the suit instituted by respondent no. 2. Against the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1996 passed by the Trial Court, respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra which was titled as Revision No. 111 of 1996 and the first Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 28.3.1998 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 on the ground that the entry in CH Form-45 recording the suit property as Banjar did not appear to be legal and valid as well as on the ground that the father of respondent no. 2 was recorded in CH Form-23 prepared under the Act, 1953. Against the judgment and order dated 28.3.1998 passed by the first Appellate Court, the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 6 to 9 filed Second Appeal No. 37 of 1997-98 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 27.2.2001. The judgment and order dated 28.3.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, District Agra and 27.2.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) A perusal of the judgments dated 28.3.1998 and 27.2.2001 passed by the Appellate Courts shows that no reasons have been given and no evidence has been referred by the said courts in support of their findings that the entries in CH Form-45 recording the suit property as Banjar was erroneous. Further, in their aforesaid judgments, the Appellate Courts have also not reversed the findings of the Trial Court that the entries in the consolidation records were suspicious. In view of the aforesaid, judgments passed by the Appellate Courts are illegal and liable to be set-aside. The orders dated 28.3.1998 and 27.2.2001 passed by the Appellate Courts are hereby set-aside.;