Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The cause list has been revised. None appears on behalf of the contesting-respondent. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the contesting-respondent and rejoinder affidavit are available on record.

3. The petitioners claim to be two out of four sons of Respondent No. 5 Pooran and are aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.1995 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) whereby the Revisional Court has allowed the revision of the Respondent No. 3 Jai Singh and held that the suit filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 10.7.1991 and other reliefs was not maintainable before the Civil Court in view of the bar under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

4. Sri Santosh Kumar has submitted that the land in question was agricultural ancestral Sir and Khudkast of the petitioners as also their brother Respondent No. 4 namely Rajendra alongwith their father namely Pooran Respondent No. 5. They state that they were born much before the date of vesting and as such they inherited equal rights alongwith Pooran their father. According to the petitioners Respondents No. 4 and 5 in collusion with each other and with Respondent No. 3 Jai Singh got the sale-deed dated 10.7.1991 executed with respect to the property in question from Pooran (Respondent No. 5). According to them the said sale-deed could not be executed by Pooran, particularly, because the petitioners had half share in the land in question by virtue of their having rights of ownership alongwith their father Pooran in the Sir and Khudkast. The petitioners allege to have filed a Suit No. 870 of 1991 in the Court of Munsif, Ghaziabad for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 10.7.1991. The Trial Court framed various issues, however, it took up Issue No. 3 as to whether the Suit was barred under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act as a preliminary issue and by the order dated 20.1.1995 decided the same in favour of the petitioners (plaintiffs) holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

5. According to Sri Santosh Kumar the Respondent No. 3 Jai Singh being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court preferred a Revision No. 69 of 1995 before the Court of District Judge, who by means of the impugned order dated 18.11.1995 has reversed the decision of the Trial Court and held that the suit was clearly barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Sri Santosh Kumar has assailed the said judgment by submitting that the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale-deed to the extent of half share belonging to the petitioners/plaintiffs and, therefore, only the Civil Court had jurisdiction to cancel the sale-deed and the suit was rightly filed. He submits that the Revisional Court has committed an error inasmuch as the petitioners were owners of half share of the agricultural land and hence required no further declaration of their title. Having said so Sri Santosh Kumar submits that the decision in the case of ‘Ram Padarath v. 2nd Additional District Judge and others’, 1989(1) AWC 290, would be applicable since the plaintiffs were owner of half share in the property in question whereof the sale-deed had been executed. According to him when the petitioners were owners of half share in the land in question the sale-deed to that extent required to be cancelled and no declaration of their title was required by the petitioners from the Revenue Court.

6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, it is quite apparent from the impugned order that the petitioners/plaintiffs had sought relief of cancellation of sale-deed dated 10.7.1991 to the extent of half portion of the agricultural land before the Civil Court. The petitioners claim to be the owner of half portion alongwith their father Pooran who was the vendor of the sale-deed, and therefore, the petitioners required no further declaration of their t