Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri C.K. Rai, counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Munai Singh i.e. respondent no. 6 was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots and was recorded as such in the revenue records. It is alleged that subsequently by sale deed dated 22.7.1969, respondent no. 6 transferred the disputed plots to the petitioners and consequently, the name of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue records. It appears from the records that the aforesaid sale deed was executed after notification under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was issued and during consolidation proceedings in the village. Subsequently, respondent no. 6 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') praying for a decree declaring him to be the Bhumidhar of the disputed plots inter alia alleging that the sale deed dated 22.7.1969 was void as no consideration for the aforesaid sale was paid by the petitioners. The Trial Court i.e. the Deputy District Magistrate, Gyanpur, District Bhadohi vide judgment and order dated 14.7.1997 decreed the case of respondent no. 6 and directed that he may be recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed plots. The judgment dated 14.7.1997 was passed by the Trial Court after recording a finding that the sale deed dated 22.7.1969 was regarding part of the entire holdings of the petitioner and therefore void in view of the prohibition contained in Section 5-C(ii) of the Act, 1953. The aforesaid judgment dated 14.7.1997 passed by the Trial Court was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal, Mirzapur through judgment and order dated 28.10.1999 in Appeal No. 4/33 filed by the petitioners and by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 3 of 1999-2000 which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 17.2.2003. The judgments and order dated 17.2.2003 and 28.10.1999 and 14.7.1997 have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have considered the matter.;