Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Chaudhary Subhhsh Kumar, assisted by Sri B.D. Mishra, for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ramesh Pundir, for the contesting respondent-1.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, dated 23.6.2006, decreeing Suit No. 5 of 2004 filed by Shimbhoo (respondent-1), Additional Commissioner, dated 27.8.2007, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 30.10.2013, dismissing second appeal of the petitioner, in the proceeding arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of land of plots 225 (area 2-17-0 bigha), 226 (area 1-6-0 bigha), 227 (area 2-5-0 bigha), 228 (area 2-1-0 bigha), and 229 (area 0-11-0 bigha), (total area 9-0-0 bighas) of village Salarpur Khader, tahsil Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar. Shimbhoo (respondent-1) filed an application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, for mutation of his name over the land in dispute, on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 16.7.1975. Tahsildar, by order dated 4.8.1976, allowed the mutation application and directed for recording the name of respondent-1 over the land in dispute. The petitioner and his brothers filed an appeal from the aforesaid order, which was allowed by Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 2.3.1979. Respondent-1 filed a revision against the aforesaid order, in which the parties entered into compromise and agreed for recording the name of respondent-1. Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 27.11.1984 submitted reference to Board of Revenue U.P., for allowing the revision in terms of compromise. However, Board of Revenue U.P. by its order dated 6.5.1997, did not accept the compromise and remanded the matter to Additional Commissioner, for deciding the revision on merit. After remand, Additional Commissioner, by order dated 28.2.2000, dismissed the revision

4. Shimbhoo (respondent-1) then filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 5 of 2004) under Section 229-B of the Act, for declaring him as ‘bhumidhar with transferable right’ and for deleting the names of Zahir, Nazir, Shamim and Sagir sons of Aziz from the land in dispute. It has been stated by respondent-1 that land in dispute was originally belonged to Alladiya. After his death, it was inherited by his twos sons Aziz and Jan Mohd. Jan Mohd. executed a sale-deed dated 14.7.1969, in respect of his 1/2 share, transferring 1/6 share in favour of Jaggu, Prakash and Mahendra sons of Sarupa and 1/3 share in favour of his sons Shabbir and Kaluwa. Shabbir and Kaluwa executed a sale-deed dated 18.2.1976 of their 1/3 share to Shimbhoo. Jaggu, Prakash and Mahendra sons of Sarupa and Aziz son of Alladiya jointly executed a sale-deed dated 16.7.1975 in respect of remaining share in the land in dispute (i.e. 1/6 share of Jaggu, Prakash and Mahendra sons of Sarupa and 1/2 share of Aziz) in favour of Shimbhoo, thus he had become sole bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Three sons of Aziz singed sale-deed dated 16.7.1975 as witnesses. However, Additional Commissioner, and Sub-Divisional Officer illegally dismissed his mutation application.

5. The petitioner and his brothers (respondents-12 to 14) contested the aforesaid suit and filed their joint written statement. They denied the plaint allegations and stated that Aziz had already sold his 1/2 share through sale-deed dated 18.8.1969 in the land in dispute, alongwith plots 144 (area 0-9-0 bigha), 145 (area 0-18-0 bigha) and 146 (area 0-12-0 bigha) of village Salarpur Khader, in favour of Harsharan, Motiram, Pitam Singh and Jalkesh Singh (respondents-2 to 5) in respect of 1/6 share and in favour of his sons Zahir, Nazir, Shamim and Sagir (the petitioner and respondents 12 to 14) in respect of 1/3 share. Thereafter, their father Aziz has not executed any