Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions. They arise from the same judgment of Board of Revenue and as such are being decided together.
(2.) In a suit for partition under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) between two brothers, who are the petitioners in both the writ petitions, final decree is said to have been passed on 24.6.1991. Subsequent to the final decree, applications for impleadment are said to have been filed by three persons namely Devendra, Bhagwan and Hari Babu on the ground that they were transferees of one of the plots in suit and therefore, had a right to be heard in the partition proceedings. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.8.1992 allowed the impleadment application. The petitioners filed revision before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.7.1998 and the impleadment application was rejected. Against the same revision was filed by the respondents Hari Babu and another which was a trust and vendee from Hari Babu, before the Board of Revenue which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 and by the said order the Board of Revenue set aside not only the order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the Additional Commissioner but also the order dated 19.8.1992 passed by the Trial Court allowing the impleadment application. From a perusal of the said judgment dated 12.1.2005 it appears that the order of the Board of Revenue was not coherent as it recorded observations against both the orders of the Trial Court and the Additional Commissioner whereas it was considering the correctness of the order of the Additional Commissioner only and in that confusion it set aside both the orders. The revisionist before the Board of Revenue applied for correction/modification of the judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 whereupon the Board of Revenue by order dated 16.2.2005 instead of deleting the words "order dated 19.8.1992" from the operative portion passed an order for substituting the order dated 24.6.1991 in place of the "order dated 19.8.1992". By the order dated 24.6.1991 the Trial Court had passed the final decree, which was not in issue before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue could not have set aside the final decree in a revision arising out of the proceedings for impleadment. The order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the final decree was thus, completely without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the revision.
(3.) However, the order of the Board of Revenue insofar as it set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the impleadment application does not seem to suffer from any infirmity and in any case not warranting interference in writ jurisdiction as it was an interlocutory order not adjudicating any rights of the parties. The Trial Court while allowing the impleadment had only given an opportunity to the transferees to have their say in the proceedings to whatever extent permissible under law. No further adjudication had taken place. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the order of the Board of Revenue insofar as it set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 30.7.1998 and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for further consideration.;