Palok Basu - (1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha Piprota, Pargana, Tahsil and District Ballia through its Pradhan with the prayer that the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 9 of 84-85, dated 19-1-87 be quashed.
(2.) THE respondents Dina Nath Tewari and Smt. Kalawati being the dependents of two such persons who lost their lives while defending the country in the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, were allegedly allotted some plot of land by the Gaon Sabha. Some trouble having arisen concerning their rights, they had to file a suit for declaration of their rights u/Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE said suit was filed on 4-12-72 in which, the State of U. P. aswell as the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan were impleaded as defendants. Admittedly on 4-1-73, the notice was served in the office of the Collector and on 4-2-73, the notice was served on the Up Pradhan of the village. Neither there was any contest by the State, nor did the Gaon Sabha object to the suit. Consequently on 6-5-75, an ex-parte decree was passed. On 1-3-79, a restoration application appears to have been filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, wherein he has alleged that knowledge of the ex-parte decree came to him on 6-2-79. Similarly a restoration application on behalf of State of U. P. was also filed on 2-2-81 with the allegation that it is only when the D.G.C. (R) had inspected the file of the case on 13-1-81 that it had come to know of the ex-parte decree. The trial court on a detailed consideration of the entire material by its reasoned order dated 23-7-84 dismissed the restoration application. The primary point noted by the trial court was that the restoration application saw the light of the day after about 5 years and there was absolutely no valid explanation for the delay either from the Pradhan's side or from the State's side.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, a first appeal was taken to the Commissioner's court by the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan of the village aswell as by the State. The ground agitated by the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan was that the service of the notice/summons of the suit on the Up Pradhan was not legal and, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn up The Commissioner by his order dated 26-11-84 allowed the appeal. At this stage, it may be stated that in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Commissioner had narrated only the facts and arguments and the entire discussion of the respective arguments was contained in paragraph 5 consisting of five lines. He opined that since the service was effected on Gauri Shanker, Up Pradhan, there was no justification for the ex-parte decree. No other reason exist in the judgment of the Commissioner. The opposite parties no. 4 and 5, consequently, took a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by it on 19-1-87. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is that the Commissioner's judgment suffers from two basic infirmity-Firstly, there was no discussion of the law basing upon which he was allowing the appeal and, secondly, there was absolutely no reason in his judgment as to why enormous delay in making the restoration application was not being touched.;