S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) IMPUGNED herein are the orders dated 31. 3. 2005 and 28. 2. 2005 passed by Board of Revenue, u. P. Allahabad.

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing counsel as well as learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha,

( 3 ) IT would appear from the record that to begin with, petitioner instituted a suit under Section 229 B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which culminated in a decree passed by Sub Divisional officer, Tamkuhiraj District Kushinagar pursuant to compromise dated 11. 9. 1980 between petitioner and Hari Kishan. Subsequently, a restoration application was filed by Prithivi Chand urging the ground that his father who was alleged to have been signatory to compromise dated 11. 9. 1980 had already expired on 20. 3. 1980 and he also submitted death certificate issued by town Area Sevarhi which testified the death of Hari Kishan on 30. 3. 1980. The aforesaid restoration application was rejected as time barred vide order dated 25. 1. 2002 and consequently, prithvi Singh filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur which was initially dismissed by order dated 30. 9. 2004 but subsequently, it was allowed on a review vide order dated 19. 10. 2004 by which the orders dated 25. 1. 2002 and 30. 9. 1980 passed by Sub divisional Officer were set aside. Aggrieved by the order, a second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed. It is in the above backdrop that the present second appeal has come to be filed in this Court.

( 4 ) THE brunt of the argument advanced across the bar by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate court has no power to review its earlier order and therefore, proceed the submissions, the impugned order passed on review application whereby the suit was dismissed as having abated, suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel relied upon a decision in smt. Shivraji v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1998 (88) RD 562 to prop up his submissions. He further assailed the order of board of Revenue stating that the Board of Revenue erred in law in not considering the aspect urged before it.

( 5 ) FROM a close scrutiny of the materials on record and also the contents of the orders, it is eloquent that the grounds which weighed with the appellate court were that the decree on the basis of compromise was obtained without summons or notice to Prithvi Singh son of Har kishan and further that death of Har Kishan Singh had preceded the date on which compromise is alleged to have been filed or decree was passed. The next ground stated in the order is that the matter pertaining to the title over self-same Gata numbers is subjudice before the consolidation courts and in the circumstances, the appellate court while allowing restoration application ordered the proceeding to have abated observing that the matter will be delved into on merits by the consolidation courts.

( 6 ) A scrutiny into the finding recorded by Sub Divisional officer would reveal that the authority concerned disbelieved death certificate on ground that it had cutting and overwriting and further that restoration application was inordinately time-barred for which no plausible explanation was forthcoming. The appeal filed against the order of Sub Divisional officer was initially rejected on the ground that the appellant had not impleaded necessary party in the case. In the review application, the appellate court reckoned with each and every aspect on merits and also considered that the matter of title is subjudice before the consolidation courts and in the ultimate analysis, allowed the review application and ordered the proceeding to have abated in view of the fact and the consolidation courts were seized of the matter of title involving the same property in question.

( 7 ) IN the above perspective, I am of the view that the impugned order was rightly passed by the lower appellate court in review inasmuch as the earlier

Click Here to Read the rest of this document