J.J.MUNIR,J. - (1.) The petitioner claims the land in dispute to be his ancestral property. It is his claim that the same has come to him through his ancestors, who were given this land by the erstwhile zamindar before the date of vesting. After the date of vesting, the petitioner became seerdar of the land in dispute by operation of law. His name was mutated in the Khasra but allegedly on account of an official mistake, his name was not entered in the record of rights (Khatauni). A suit was filed by the fifth respondent to this petition under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, Ghazipur impleading respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 here, alone as defendants. The said claim has been brought against the State respondents and the Gram Sabha on basis that he has title and possession to the land in dispute that was recorded since time antedating the abolition of zamindari, in the bandobast at that time. He had been paying land revenue and post abolition of zamindari has remained in possession.
(2.) Heard Sri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent No.5 is not being issued as no rights are being determined by this order. However, in case the said respondent still feel aggrieved, it will be open to him to make an application in the decided petition. Respondent No.5 claimed a declaratory decree of his rights relating to the land in dispute as a bhumidhar with transferable rights and appropriate directions to record his name in the revenue records. The said suit was decreed without impleading the petitioner, who claims title to the said land, vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.1995 passed by the Pargana Adhikari, Mohamadabad, District Ghazipur in Suit No.137 of 1993. It is submitted by the petitioner that after knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1995, he filed a belated appeal to the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner submits that being not party to the appeal, he had no knowledge of the aforesaid decree passed in the suit, and for the first time came to know of it a day prior to 9.11.2016, when he filed the appeal. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi, however, held that the certified copy of the judgment impugned in appeal shows that it was issued to the petitioner on 4.10.2016, and, therefore, there was no basis to say that he filed the appeal the day following acquisition of knowledge. He filed it almost one month after coming to know of the decree sought to be impugned in the belated appeal. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Commissioner dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide order dated 26.12.2016 passed in Appeal No.334 of 2016, and in consequence, rejected the memorandum of appeal as barred by time. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision to the Board of Revenue. The aforesaid Revision was registered before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad as Revision No.826 of 2019. Along with the Revision, an application for stay was made seeking to stay operation of the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dismissing his appeal from the Trial Court's decree as time barred. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.05.2019, issued notice pending admission on the Revision. The petitioner's grievance is that no order has been passed on the stay application, in consequence of which standing crop of the petitioner would be destroyed. This is so as respondent No.5, in collusion with the local Tehsil staff is digging up his fields. The prayer in this writ petition is that an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No.1, the Board of Revenue to decide the petitioner's pending stay application, or the Revision, within a determinate period of time.
(3.) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that the Revision is yet at the stage of admission, the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad is directed to pass appropriate orders in the Revision on admission, and further depending on the order made, admitting or refusing to admit the Revision to hearing, on the Stay Application, positively on the next date fixed, that is to say, 5.08.2019. The Revision shall not be adjourned on 5.08.2019, so far as the question of admission or orders on the Stay application are concerned.;