JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 and Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter shall be referred as "U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act" filed by Ram Chandra and Anjani Lal sons of Mahabir impleading Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad & State of U.P. as defendants claiming bhumidhari right over plot No. 297 area 2-2-10 of Khata No-354 situated in village - Phaphamau, Pargana & Tahsil - Soraon, District Allahabad. The aforementioned Suit No. 21/64 was registered as suit No.2/64 before Sub Divisional Officer, Soraon, Allahabad and issues were framed in the suit. The aforementioned suit was decreed by trial court vide judgment & decree dated 7.4.1994 expunging the entry of banjar in respect to disputed plot and holding that plot in dispute is ancestral property of plaintiff. Gaon Sabha applied for restoration /recall after about nine years on 3.9.2003 along with the prayer for condonation of delay as well as interim relief against the judgment & decree dated 7.4.1994 on the ground that plot is recorded as Navin parti as such Gaon Sabha was necessary party in the suit but without impleading the Gaon Sabha the suit has been filed and decree has been obtained. Gaon Sabha also setup a claim that old Number of the plot No.297 was 107 rather 102. Sub Divisional officer initially granted interim order on 3.9.2003 staying the operations of judgment & decree dated 7.4.1994 and subsequently vide final order dated 14.12.2005 the recall application was allowed and judgment and decree dated 7.4.1994 was set aside. Plaintiffs filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.8.2006 setting aside the order dated 14.12.2005 and remanded the matter back before Sub Divisional Officer to decide the suit afresh. In pursuance of the remand order dated 24.8. 2006 matter was heard afresh and vide order dated 17.6.2010 trial court again maintained the earlier order dated 14.12.2005 and directed to record the plot No. 297 as Gaon Sabha plot. In pursuance of the remand order dated 24.8. 2006 matter was heard afresh and vide order dated 17.6.2010 trial court again maintained the earlier order dated 14.12.2005 and directed to record the plot No. 297 as Gaon Sabha plot. Respondent No.8 who is claiming right on the basis of sale deed executed on 08.04.2004 in her favour by plaintiff challenged the judgment of trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer dared 17.06.2010 in appeal under section- 331 (3) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before Commissioner which was registered as appeal No-02/18 of 2010 & the same was dismissed by Commissioner vide judgment dated 9.6.2011. Respondent No. 8 challenged the judgment dated 9.6.2011 in second-appeal before board of revenue under Section-331 (4) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act which was registered as second Appeal No - 9 of 2010-11. The aforementioned Second appeal was heard & finally allowed vide judgment dated 16.9.2015 setting aside the appellate judgment dated 9.6.2011, trial court judgment dated 17.6.2010 as well as rejected the restoration/ Recall application dated 3.9.2003 filed by Gaon Sabha & affirmed the earlier judgment of trial Court dated 7.4.1994. Petitioner/ Allahabad Development authority applied for Recall / review against the order dated 16.9.2015 which was pending before Board of Revenue as Case No. RES/1699/2016 Computerized Case No.AL20160203001699 at the time of filing of instant petition. Nagar Nigam applied for restoration agaisnt the order dated 16.09.2015 which was registered as Case No RES/1266/2016 computerized Case No. AL20160203001266 and the same was also pending at the time of filing of instant writ petition. Nagar Nigam applied for restoration agaisnt the order dated 16.09.2015 which was registered as Case No RES/1266/2016 computerized Case No. AL20160203001266 and the same was also pending at the time of filing of instant writ petition. Hence this writ petition petition on behalf of petitioner/Allahabad Development Authority was filled on 18.2.2017 with laches of 1 year 265 days for the following relief:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 09 of 2010-11, in terms of which the Second Appeal filed by the Respondent No.8/ Smt. Nirmala Shukla has been allowed, and also the order dated 07.04.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Allahabad in Suit No. 21/64 of 1993, filed by Ram Chandra and Anjani Lal (predecessor in interest of Respondent No.8/ Smt. Nirmala Shukla) under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking declaration of bhumidhari rights over land bearing Gata No. 297, area 02 Bigha, 02 Biswa and 10 Dhoor under Khata No. 354 situate in Mauja Phaphamau, Pragana and Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad, was decreed, has been affirmed (Annexure No. 12 to the Writ Petition). (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondent No.8/ Smt. Nirmala Shukla from taking any steps for alienating the land under Gata No. 297 referred to above or creating any third party rights or altering status quo in respect of the same." 3. This Court vide order dated 9.3.2017 entertained the matter & granted interim protection in the matter staying the operation of the judgment & decree dated 16.9.2015 passed by Board of Revenue 4. In pursuance of the order dated 9.3.2017 parties have exchanged their pleading. 5. This Count vide order dated 22.4.2019 directed the respondent No. 1/ Board of revenue to decide the recall application filed by petitioner against the impugned order dated 16.9.2015 accordingly Board of Revenue has rejected the restoration case filed by petitioner vide order dated 15.05.2019 as well as restoration case filed by Nagar Nigam vide order dated 15.05.2019. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No- 297 was gram Sabha land as Such gram Sabha was necessary party to be impleaded in the Suit under section. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot No- 297 was gram Sabha land as Such gram Sabha was necessary party to be impleaded in the Suit under section. 229 B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act filed by plaintiffs but trial Count has decreed the plaintiff's Suit in ex parte manner against Gaon Sabha which is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that in second appeal Gaon Sabha has not been impleaded but the order passed in favour of Gaon sabha on recall/ restoration/ delay condonation matter has been set aside which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the notification dated 27.1.1959 which is annexed an Annexure No-13 to the writ petition demonstrate that plot No 297 situated in village- Phaphamau, Pargana & Tahsil - Soraon, District- Allahabad is not within the limit of Nagar Nigam Allahabad. He further submitted that in second-appeal before board of revenue an objection dated 6.11.2012 was filed on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika (Nagar Nigam) which was very much on record of Second-appeal but the same has not been taken into consideration by Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order dated 16.9.2015 as such the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue is wholly illegal. He further submitted that plaint case setup was that old number of plot No.297 was 102 which was ancestral property of plaintiffs but record demonstrate that old number of plot No. 297 was 107 as such, the suit filed by plaintiff on the basis of plaint case set up by plaintiff can not be decreed on merit. He further submitted that respondent No-8 is claiming right on the basis of sale-deed executed in her favour on 8.4.2004 which was executed during pendency of the proceeding as such respondent No.8 can not claim any right & title in the matter. He further submitted that plot No-297 is situated within periphery of the acquired land by the petitioner/ Allahabad Development Authority which has been developed as Shantipuram Avas Yojana and petitioner has paid the requisite amount for its resumption but Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner without considering the entire aspect of the case on merit. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No- 8 submitted that disputed plot No-297 area 2 bigha 2 biswa 10 dhoor is carved from old plot No-107 which was initially recorded in the name of Mahabir son of Bachcha in 1359 fasli and after his death in 1377 fasli, the name of plaintiffs (Ramchandra & Anjani Lal son of Mahabir) were recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right. He further submitted that consolidation intervene in the village in question in 1982 and notification under section-52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 took place in the year 1988. He further submitted that plot No. 107 was recorded as CH-18 in the name of plaintiffs (Ram Chandra & Anjani Lal). He further placed the Khatauni of 1359 fasli, 1377 fasli, C.H. Form 23, 41 and 45 which are annexed as Annxure to the counter affidavit. He further submitted that in C.H. Form 45 the plot No.297 was erroneously mentioned as Navin Parli accordingly proceeding under section- 33/39 of UP Land Revenue Act 1901 was initiated which was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer with observation to file suit under section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that Ramchandra & Anjani Lal sons of Mahabir accordingly instituted the suit under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which has resulted into the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue affirming the judgment and decree of trial Count dated 7.4.1994 by which plaintiffs suit was decreed. He further submitted that plot No-297 never vested in Gaon Sabha or Nagar Mahapalika or Allahabad Development Authority as provided under Section-117 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further Submitted that without order of any authority the plot in dispute was recorded an Navin Parti during consolidation operation accordingly Suit under Section- 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by plaintiffs was decreed by trial Count vide Judgment & decree dated 7.4. 1994. He further submitted that after lapse of nine years Tahasil Panel lawyer for Gaon Sabha filed a recall application without any resolution of Gaon Sabha for filling the recall/restoration application against the order dated 7.4.1994. He further submitted that in the year 1959 (1366 fasli) the area of Allahabad was extended and village- Phaphamau merged in Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad accordingly control of Gaon Sabha came to an end in respect to village - Phaphamau. He further submitted that in the year 1959 (1366 fasli) the area of Allahabad was extended and village- Phaphamau merged in Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad accordingly control of Gaon Sabha came to an end in respect to village - Phaphamau. He further Submitted that plaintiffs of suit under Section-229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or respondent No. 8 are not claiming any right in respect to gaon Sabha land or State land rather plot in dispute was recorded as bhumidhari plot of Mahabir in 1359 fasli and Nagar Mahapalika was impleaded as defendant/ opposite party since the stage of filing of suit till filing of second appeal before Board of Revenue as such petitioner who was not party in suit proceeding cannot file the instant petition challenging the judgment and decree passed in suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that recall application No-1266 of 2016 filed by petitioner and restoration / recall application 1699 of 2016 filed by Nagar Nigam have been rejected for non prosecution vide order dated 15.5. 2019 as such petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. He further placed reliance upon the following judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his argument: (i) 1983 RD 75 Gaon Sabha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Gyanpur, Varanasi. (ii)2002 (93) RD 436 (Allahabad High Court) Ali Dad Khan and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Moradabad and others. (iii) 2009 (106) RD 783 (Supreme Court) Chokalingaswami Idol through its Hereditary Trustee v. Gnanapragasam (dead) through Lrs. and others. (iv) 2009 (108) RD 689 (Allahabad High Court- Lucknow Bench) Dharam Raj v. State of U .P. and others. (v) A.I.R. 1992 SC 1018 State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh and others. (vi) 2009 (106) RD 328 (Allahabad High Court) Dr. P.K. Pandey (Chief Specialist) Primary Health Centre, Hathgaon, Fatehpur v. Atul Tiwari. (vii) 1990 R.D. 400 Smt. Sarwari Begum v. Abdul Majid and six others. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as writtten argument dated 28.02.2024 supplied by learned counsel for respondent no.8 along with case law but supplementary affidavit dated 28.02.2024 supplied by learned counsel for the respondent No.8 along with written argument cannot be taken into consideration as judgment has already been reserved in the matter on 19.2.2024. 9. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit under section 229-B of U.P. Z.A.& L.R Act filed by plaintiffs after impleading Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad and State of U.P. as defendant was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1994 expunging the entry of banjar from the revenue record and recording the name of plaintiff in respect to suit property. There is also no dispute about the fact that against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.1994 gaon sabha applied for restoration/ recall on 03.09.2003 accordingly the judgement and decree dated 7.4.1994 was set aside. There is also no dispute about the fact that plaintiff field revision before board of revenue impleading State and Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad as opposite party which was allowed setting aside the order dated 14.12.2005 and remanded the matter back before Sub Divisional Officer to decide the suit afresh. There is also no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the remand order the trial court has heard the matter and vide order dated 17.6.2010 maintained the earlier order dated 14.12.2005 and directed to record plot in question as gaon sabha plot. There is also no dispute about the fact that respondent No.8 challenged the judgement of trial court dated 17.06.2010 in appeal which was dismissed by Commissioner vide judgement dated 9.6.2011 but in second appeal filed by respondent No. 8 the Board of Revenue has set aside the appellate judgement dated 9.6.2011, trial court judgement dated 17.6.2010 as well as rejected the restoration/ recall application dated 3.9.2003 filed by gaon sabha and affirmed the earlier judgment of trial court dated 07.04.1994. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has applied for review/ recall before Board of Revenue against the order dated 16.09.2015 which was pending before Board of Revenue at the time of filing of the instant petition but later on the same has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. 10. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Allahabad Development Authority challenging the judgement passed by Board of Revenue dated 6.9.2015 although petitioner/Allahabad Development Authority was not the party in suit, appeal or revision. 11. 10. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Allahabad Development Authority challenging the judgement passed by Board of Revenue dated 6.9.2015 although petitioner/Allahabad Development Authority was not the party in suit, appeal or revision. 11. It is also material that Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad was impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit under section 229- B Of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act but after judgement and decree dated 7.4.1994 passed by trial court restoration/ recall was filed by Gaon Sabha on 3.9.2003 accordingly, trial court has set aside the judgement and decree dated 7.4.1994 after setting aside of the judgement and decree dated 7.4.1994 gaon sabha disappeared in the subsequent proceeding. After passing of the impugned judgement dated 16.05.2015 by Board of Revenue, the petitioner-Allahabad Development Authority came in picture and filed the instant petition challenging the impugned judgement passed in the second appeal by the Board of Revenue. It is also material that review / recall application filed by petitioner- Allahabad Development Authority against the final judgement dated 16.05.2015 has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. It is also material that during pendency of the second appeal No. 9 of 2010-11 before Board of Revenue a written preliminary objection was filed on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad (Nagar Nigam Allahabad) through Nagar Ayukt with prayer to dismiss the second appeal. The copy of the preliminary objection dated 6.11.2012 filed by Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad (Nagar Nigam Allahabad) through Nagar Ayukt is annexed as annexure No. 14 to the instant Writ petition, which will be relevant for perusal, which is as under: "In the Board of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad Second Appeal No. 9 of 2010-11 (Under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Z.A. & LR. Act) District Allahabad Smt. Nirnala Shukla v. State of U.P. and others To, The Hon'ble the Chairman and other Companion members of the Hon'ble Court: The humble preliminary objection on behalf of the Respondent No: 2 Nagar Malapalika. Allahabad (in fact Nagar Nigam, Allahabad) through its Nugar Ayukt is as follows: 1. That from the perusal of the order and Judgment dated 07-04-1994 in Suit No. 21/64 of 1993 (Ram Chandra and another v. Nazar Mahapalika Allahabad and another) by the Parganadhikari, Soraon, Allababad, which has been filed aš annexure N0. Allahabad (in fact Nagar Nigam, Allahabad) through its Nugar Ayukt is as follows: 1. That from the perusal of the order and Judgment dated 07-04-1994 in Suit No. 21/64 of 1993 (Ram Chandra and another v. Nazar Mahapalika Allahabad and another) by the Parganadhikari, Soraon, Allababad, which has been filed aš annexure N0. 4 to the affidavit in support of Stay Application, on which the appellant is relying upon, it transpires that the suit was instituted against Nagar Malhapalika, Allahabad through Sabhasad ward no. 29, Mauja Phaphamau under section 229B,U.P. Z.A, & L.R. Act and Shri. Kamta Singh son of Shri. Hari I'ratap Singh, Sabhasad ward no, 29 has filed affidavit and has requested for amendment (Correction) of error of Government Records. 2. That in the suit Nugar Mahapalika. Allahabad was not impleaded through Mukhya Nagar Adhikari/Nagar Ayukt as per provisions of Section564 (g) of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyan 1959 but in Collusion with the then Sabhasad ward no. 29, who was not empowerd under U.P. Nagar Malapalika Adhiniyanm 1959 to defend the suit against Nagar Malapalika, Allababad, the Suit was instituted against Nagar Malhapalika, Allababad through Sablhasad ward no. 29 and served on Sabhasad ward no. 29 and as such the suit appears from the statement in the plaint being instituted against Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad through an incompetent and unauthorized person i.e., Sabhasad ward no. 29 instead of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Allahabad as per provisions of Section 564 (g) of U.P Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, was barred by the provisions of Section 564 (g) of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 and as such the plaint against the Nagar Malhapalika Allalhabad in the aforesaid suit in question should have been rejected by the learned Parganadhikari Soraon vide Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. 1908. 3. That since Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad was not impleaded through competent authority, i.e. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Allahabad and the suit was decided without impleading Nagar, Mahapalika, Allahabad through Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Alahabad and as such in the absence of Mukhya Nagar Adhikari Allababad to defend on behalf of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, the Nagar Mahapalika Allalhabad could not contest the suit and the consequent Order and Judgment as well as decree passed in the suit shall always be nullity and would be deemed to be void against the local authority, i.e. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. 4. 4. That the alleged cause of action for filing the aforesaid original suit no, 21/64 of 1993 was that the old number of the new plot no.297 area 2 Bigia 2 Biswa 10 dhoor was plot no. 102 area 2 Bigha 7 Biswa. which was in the name ol Mahabir son of Bachcha, father of the plaintiffs and since they have right over plot no. 102 after the death of their father, hence they should be declared Blumidhar of new plot no. 297 area, 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa 10 dhoor. The then Leklhpal and Bhulekh Nirikshak has also given report dated 24.06.1992 that the old plot no. of the new plot no. 297 is 102 and finally Naib Tehsildar has recommended vide his report dated 27.01.1993 that since the old no. of the new plot no. 297 is 102 and as such the names of owner of plot no. 102 should be entered regarding new plot No. 297 and on the basis of these reports, which was not given during the pendency of the suit but was obtained in another proceeding under section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act, and the aforesaid assertions of the plaintiffs, treating the old no. of new plot no. 297 as plot no. 102, the learned the then Pargana Adhikari observed that the disputed plot is the Ancestral property of the plaintiffs, whose name has been entered in the Khatauni of old plot no. 102 and due to the error disputed plot has been entered in the Khata of Banjar and on the basis of the said finding the suit was decreed vide order dated 07.09. 1994 but after the finding of the suit was decreed vide order dated 07.09.1994 but after the finding of learned Up- Ziladhikari, Soraon, Allahabad vide his order and judgment dated 17.06.2010 that according to C.H. Form No. 41 the old number of the new plot no, 297 is 107, the present appellant tried to get amended old plot no. 107 instead of old plot no. 102, which was turned down by the learned Up-Ziladhikari, Soraon, Allahabad vide order dated 17.06.2010. 5. 107 instead of old plot no. 102, which was turned down by the learned Up-Ziladhikari, Soraon, Allahabad vide order dated 17.06.2010. 5. That since admittedly the aforementioned cause of action of original suit No. 21/64 of 1993 did not arose at the time of filing of the suit, hence it shall be presumed that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and as such under such circumstances the plaint deserved to be rejected vide Order 7, Rule 11 (a) of C.P.C, 1908 and in the absence of any alleged cause of action in the original plaint, the order and judgment and consequent decree passed in the original suit shall always be nullity and would have no legal effect to change the entries of new plot no. 297 at the time of filing of the suit. 6. That since the appellant is pursuing the order and judgment dated 07.04.1994 being alleged transferee of the original plaintiffs, and as such she has got no right and title over the plot no. 297 on the basis of the aforesaid decree, which is prima facie null and void and as such thc second appeal and stay application filed therein by her deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. 7. That on the basis of the aforesaid preliminary objections, the aforesaid Second Appeal as well as the stay application moved therein deserves to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court. Dated : 06.11.2012 (Maya Shankar Srivastava) Advocate Counsel for the Respondent no. 2" 12. The perusal of the preliminary objection dated 06.11.2012 filed by Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad (Nagar Nigam Alahabad) in Second Appeal before Board of revenue fully demonstrate that plot in dispute was under Nagar Mahapalika/ Nagar Nigam and Gaon Sabha has no concern with the matter. 13. It is also material that in the suit, appeal as well as in second appeal Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad was impleaded as defendant/opposite party/respondent and the Court has passed the judgement and decree considering the case setup in suit/ appeal/ second appeal in accordance with law. Allahabad Development Authority was not party in suit, appeal/ second appeal, as such writ petition at the instance of Allahabad Development Authority challenging the impugned order dated 16.5.2015 passed by Board of Revenue cannot be entertained. Allahabad Development Authority was not party in suit, appeal/ second appeal, as such writ petition at the instance of Allahabad Development Authority challenging the impugned order dated 16.5.2015 passed by Board of Revenue cannot be entertained. In second appeal Nagar Mahapalika was impleaded as respondent No.8 and he has filed his preliminary objection also in the second appeal as such the filing of Writ petition by Allahabad Development Authority is abuse of process of law. 14. It is also material that trial court vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.1994 has decreed the plaintiff's suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act after framing issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue in second appeal filed by respondent No.8 has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 331-(4) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act after framing the substantial question of law and deciding the same in accordance with law by affirming the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 07.04.1994 which requires no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, filing of the objection/ recall application/ writ petition some time by gaon sabha, some time by Nagar Mahapalika (Nagar Nigam) and some time by Allahabad Development Authority demonstrate that authorities are not proceeding in proper manner to challenge the judgement and decree passed in the judicial proceeding in accordance with law. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter against the judgement and decree dated 16.9.2015 passed by Board of Revenue in second appeal arising out of suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. 17. The writ petition is dismissed.