Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners father, Devta Din filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act against the Gaon Sabha claiming right over the Gaon Sabha land (suit no.916 renumbered several times, the last one being 103). Further argument is that father of the petitioners died and thereafter petitioners were substituted at his place. Suit was decreed on 31.5.1995 through Annexure II when petitioner no. 2 Lallan Kumar was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha. It means that petitioner no.2 was plaintiff as well as contesting defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the suit had been filed due to the reason that property in dispute was ancestral property of the petitioners' father, however, during consolidation name of the petitioners' father was not recorded. In view of this statement the suit itself was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and was bound to be dismissed on this ground also apart from other grounds.
(2.) A restoration application was filed by State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha on 27.03.2008 copy of which is Annexure VI to the writ petition (case no.19/57). Petitioners filed objections contending that restoration application was not maintainable as Pradhan had not permitted for filing of the same. Objection regarding maintainability of restoration application was dismissed on 16.11.2009 and restoration application was directed to be put up for hearing/order on 19.11.2009 by the S.D.O. Sadar district Bahraich. Against said order this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner no.2 is still Pradhan hence he can never permit filing of such application. In any case D.G.C. could very well file restoration on behalf of State. The writ petition is utterly misconceived hence dismissed.
(3.) The collector Bahraich shall appoint/authorise some other person to lookafter the case on behalf of Gaon Sabha.;