JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This review petition was filed on 23.10.1997 i.e. after more than three years from the date of judgement sought to be reviewed i.e. 19.4.1994. No formal application for condonation of delay was filed. In the review petition extremely vague ground in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the review petition was taken. The ground was that the petitioner was heart patient and due to prolonged treatment she could not file review petition earlier. It was also stated in para 11 of the review petition that petitioner was 80 years old lady. This is absolutely no ground for seeking condonation of such long delay. No details of treatment etc. have been given. 3. However, even though, in my opinion, no sufficient ground for condonation of delay has been made out, still I propose to decide the review petition on merits as it has been thoroughly argued on merits. 4. All the substitution and impleadment applications are allowed. 5. This writ petition was dismissed on 19.4.1994 by Hon’ble S.P. Srivastava, J. (since retired) by the following order : “Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Caveator, representing the Gaon Sabha. Perused the record. The Board of Revenue, while allowing the Second appeal has interfered in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court giving detailed reasons indicating the said finding to be vitiated in law being perverse and based on wrong assumptions and further on account of omission to consider the evidence having material bearing on the controversy involved in the suit. No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference in the impugned order, while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously argued that an earlier judgement between the parties operated as res-judicata, as rightly held by the Additional Commissioner, while allowing first appeal. 7. In respect of agricultural land in dispute earlier proceedings were initiated by Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee for eviction against the petitioner under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Rule 115 of the Rules framed thereunder. Tahsildar passed the order of eviction on 30.9.1969. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 235 of 1970. Tahsildar passed the order of eviction on 30.9.1969. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 235 of 1970. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut through order dated 22.2.1970 recommended to the Board of Revenue that revision be accepted and order of lower Court be quashed. The Additional Commissioner in the said order held : “Thus prima facie, the applicant would appear to have acquired sirdari rights, but the question of title cannot be decided in these summary proceedings.” In the said order no specific finding was given that since when petitioner was in possession. Position of relevant entries in revenue records was also not mentioned in the said judgement. The Board of Revenue accepted the said reference through order dated 5.8.1974. Duplicate copy of the said order was also submitted on 15.9.2006, when arguments on this review petition were heard. The Board of Revenue also held that "It is, therefore, obvious that in this case a bona fide question of title is involved and the revisionist could not be evicted in this summary proceedings.” 8. Thereafter petitioner herself filed suit for declaration being suit No. 52 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The suit was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.3.1993. Petitioner filed appeal No. 28 of 1992-93 against the said judgement. Appeal was allowed on 19.5.1993. However, that order was set aside by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal and Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 191 of 1992-93 State v. Shrimati Shakuntala restored the order of the trial Court dismissing the suit after allowing the appeal through judgement and decree dated 15.1.1994. The said judgement and decree of Board of Revenue was challenged through this writ petition. 9. The first Appellate Court based its decision only and only on the earlier decision of the Revisional Court and Board of Revenue dated 22.2.1970 and 5.8.1974. In the judgement of the first Appellate Court (dated 19.5.1993) itself it has come that in the revenue records petitioner was not at all recorded in the years 1356 Fasli or 1359 Fasli. In fact, until 1373 F. petitioner’s name was nowhere in the revenue records. In proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act petitioner had stated that she was in possession for 18-20 years. In fact, until 1373 F. petitioner’s name was nowhere in the revenue records. In proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act petitioner had stated that she was in possession for 18-20 years. Merely on this basis it was held by first appellate Court that her possession related back to 1359F. 10. Orders passed under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land reforms Act do not operate as res judicata in subsequent title suit. In fact, by virtue of Section 122-B (4-D) such judgements are subject to the result of regular suit in the matter of title. Board of Revenue in its judgement rightly observed that the petitioner herself had admitted that land came in her possession in 1958 and that it was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha since 1952 when Zamindari was abolished. In view of this I hold that the judgement of the first appellate Court was utterly erroneous in law and Board of Revenue rightly reversed the same. No revenue record has been shown in spite of opportunity to that effect having been granted by me, which could prove that either in 1356 F. or in 1359 F. or even immediately thereafter name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records. 11. In the end it was faintly argued that the judgement passed by the Board of Revenue was erroneous in law, as it had allowed the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law, as provided under Section 100, C.P.C. Board of Revenue even though did not specifically frame the questions of law, however, Board of Revenue reversed the judgement of the appellate Court/Additional Commissioner on pure questions of law. In my opinion, the following two questions of law have been decided by the Board of Revenue and the decision is quite correct : (i) Whether order passed under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act operates as res judicata in subsequent suit based upon title? (ii) Whether Additional Commissioner while making the reference and Board of Revenue while accepting the reference in proceedings under Section122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act decided the title of the petitioner in respect of land in dispute. 12. Accordingly I do not find least merit in the review petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———