Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 46 (ALL)

Virendra Singh v. Board of Revenue

2018-01-05

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. List is revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The present petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 12.12.2000, 29.5.2000 and 21.3.1999 passed by respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively (annexed as annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively). 4. The facts of the case are that the respondents No. 4 and 5 instituted suit No. 267 under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') praying for a decree declaring that the name of the petitioner and respondents No. 9 to 11 were wrongly recorded in the revenue record relating to plot Nos. 247/1 and 591. 5. Suit No. 267 was instituted with the allegation that Rajai, who was the original Bhomidhar of the disputed plots had executed an agreement for sale regarding the disputed plots in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 on 17.12.1976, but had subsequently executed a sale-deed dated 13.5.1980 of the disputed plots in favour of the petitioner and respondents No. 9 to 11. In the plaint instituting Suit No. 267, it was pleaded that respondents No. 4 and 5 had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract for sale and for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 13.5.1980. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 14. 10. 1983 and the sale-deed dated 13.5.1980 was held to be invalid. Subsequently, an appeal filed by the petitioner as well as respondents No. 9 to 11 against the judgment and decree dated 24. 10. 1983 passed by the Trial Court was also dismissed by Additional District Judge Deoria on 17.4.1989. In pursuance of the aforesaid decrees, a sale-deed was executed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 20.10.1993. 6. On the basis of aforesaid sale-deed dated 20.10.1993, suit No. 267 was decreed by respondent No. 3 vide his judgment and decree dated 21. 3. 1999. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21. 3. 1999, the petitioner and respondents No. 9 and 10 filed Appeal No. 48K of 1999, which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 2000. 3. 1999. 7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21. 3. 1999, the petitioner and respondents No. 9 and 10 filed Appeal No. 48K of 1999, which was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 2000. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 12 of 1999-2000 before respondent No. 1, which was also dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide his judgment and decree dated 12.12.2000. 8. It is noteworthy that against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1989 passed by Additional District Judge, Deoria, the petitioner had filed Second Appeal No. 1340 of 1989 before this Court which was pending during the proceedings in the Revenue Courts i.e. respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that suit No. 267 filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 was decreed and the appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed on the ground that a sale-deed had been executed in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 on 20.10.1993 and Courts below did not consider that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was pending. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No. 4 and 5, in which they have brought on record the judgment and order dated 25.5.2004 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1340 of 1989, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by this Court. 11. In view of the fact that the second appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, the present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.