Salil Kumar Rai, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, holding brief of Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Plot No. 1051A, measuring 0.578 hectares (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plot'). Initially Sri Raja Thakur Prasad Singh and subsequently his son Babu Gaya Prasad Singh were recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plot. In 1362 Fasli, petitioner was recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plot. Respondent No. 3 instituted Case No. 1 of 1993 under Section 229-B/176 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') praying that he may be declared co-tenure holder of the disputed plot alongwith the petitioner. In the plaint instituting the said case, respondent No. 3 alleged that he and the petitioner are sons of Bans Gopal. It was further alleged that Bans Gopal was in possession of the disputed plot as Sirdar and name of the petitioner was recorded merely because after the death of Bans Gopal, he was the Karta of the family. Further, contention of respondent No. 3 was that the disputed plot was ancestral property of petitioner and respondent No. 3, and therefore, respondent No. 3 was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder of the disputed plot. The aforesaid case was contested by the petitioner, who filed his written statement, wherein he denied the contention of respondent No. 3 and stated that the disputed plot was his self acquired property and was not the ancestral property of Bans Gopal. In his written statement, petitioner had also stated that he was rightly recorded as Sirdar of disputed plot in Khatauni of 1362 Fasli as he was in possession of the disputed plot in his own right and Bans Gopal, i.e. father of petitioner and respondent No. 3, was never in possession of the disputed plot.
(3.) The Trial Court i.e. Assistant Collector Class-Ist/Sub Divisional Magistrate, District-Banda vide his judgement and order dated 27.2.1999 dismissed Case No. 1/1993 instituted by respondent No. 3 on the ground that respondent No. 3 had not been able to prove that the disputed plot was ancestral property of Bans Gopal and the name of the petitioner was recorded as Karta Khandan of the family after the death of Bans Gopal, i.e. father of petitioner and respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 162 of 1998-99, which was allowed by First Appellate Court i.e. Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda Division-(respondent No. 2) vide his judgement and order dated 25.10.1999. Through its aforesaid judgement, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgement dated 27.2.1999 passed by Trial Court and decreed Case No. 1/1993 holding that respondent No. 3 was a co-tenure holder of the disputed plot with the petitioner. Aggrieved by judgement and decree dated 25.10.1999 passed by First Appellate Court, petitioner filed Second Appeal before respondent No. 1-Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad, which was registered as Second Appeal No. 6/99-2000/Banda. The aforesaid second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad vide its judgement and order dated 30.11.2000. The judgements and orders dated 25.10.1999 passed by First Appellate Court and 30.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 1 are put to challenge in the present writ petition.;