- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the revenue proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot Nos. 1473A, 1594 and 1785 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plots'). The facts of the case as evident from the records are that in the revenue records the petitioner and Paras Nath were recorded as co-tenure holders of the disputed plots. Respondent No. 2 is the widow of Paras Nath and respondent No. 3 is the daughter of Paras Nath. The petitioner filed Case No. 109/192 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') on 18.2.2003 praying to be declared as the sole tenure holder of the disputed plots claiming that in an oral family settlement Paras Nath had relinquished his claim over the disputed plots and as a result of the said family settlement, the petitioner was in possession of the disputed plots as its sole tenure holder. It is further alleged by the petitioner that a memorandum of the aforesaid family settlement was executed by the petitioner and Paras Nath on 28.10.2002. Case No. 109/192 filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Deputy District Magistrate, Hata, District-Kushi Nagar vide his judgement and decree dated 17.7.2006. Paras Nath died on 12.8.2006. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal Nos. 5 and 1/k-2006 against the judgement and decree dated 17.7.2006 passed by the trial court. The claim of respondent No. 2 was as a widow of Paras Nath and the claim of respondent No. 3 was based on a sale-deed dated 10.1.2003 executed by Paras Nath in her favour regarding Plot Nos. 1785 and 1594. The said appeals were filed on 20.9.2006 and 26.10.2006. The aforesaid appeals were admitted for hearing by the appellate court vide its orders dated 5.10.2006 and 6.12.2006.
(3.) Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 field applications dated 7.6.2007 in Appeal Nos. 5 of 2006 and 1/k-2006 praying for permission to withdraw the aforesaid appeals because of certain formal defects in the appeals and for permission to file fresh appeals against the decree passed by the trial court. While the said applications were pending, the respondents filed Revision No. 52/2006-07 before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue') challenging the decree dated 17.7.2006 passed by the trial court. Revision Nos. 4/2006-07 and 26/2006-07 were filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue challenging the different orders passed by the appellate court allowing the delay condonation applications filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also the different orders admitting, for hearing, the appeals filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Subsequently, vide its orders dated 18.12.2007 passed in Appeal No. 1/k-2006 and Appeal No. 5 of 2006 the appellate court allowed the application dated 7.6.2007 filed by the petitioner and dismissed as withdrawn Appeal Nos. 5 of 2006 and 1/k-2006. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 11.12.2014 allowed Revision No. 52/2006-07 filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and set aside the decree dated 17.7.2006 passed by the trial court and consequently dismissed Revision Nos. 4/2006-07 and 26/2006-07 as infructuous. Through its order dated 11.12.2014, the Board of Revenue also dismissed Case No. 109/192 instituted by the petitioner. The order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition.;