The duty of revenue authorities to implement orders in declaratory suits and the inapplicability of the Limitation Act in such cases were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Dev Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Sri Om Prakash Tripathi learned Counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.8.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Azamgarh in Revision No. 642/735/A of 2013 affirming the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sadar, Azamgarh directing Amaldaramad on the basis of a final order passed in proceedings under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

2. The facts of the case are that one Ram Sagar Singh father and predecessor in interest of respondents No. 13 to 15, filed a suit against one Ahmad Raza and others for declaration regarding fourteen plots having an area 3.256 hectare which was numbered as Suit No. 141 of 1964. This suit was decreed ex-parte and the ex-parte decree was duly recorded in the revenue records.

3. Ahmad Raza filed a restoration application which was allowed on 23.7.1966 and the suit was restored to its original number. Subsequently, one of the defendants Mumtaz Raza died. Since no substitution application was filed, the suit was ordered to abate vide order dated 28.5.1973. Against the order abating the suit, a review application was filed but was dismissed. Thereafter, Ram Sagar Singh preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who allowed the same and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.

4. After remand, the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 20.3.1975 dismissed the suit. The consequential Appeal No. 35-A/75 filed by Ram Sagar Singh was dismissed on 25.11.1978. This order and therefore, the dismissal of the suit itself, is stated to have become final not having been challenged any further.

5. After the dismissal of the suit, an application was filed by one Tahira Begum for expunging the name of Ram Sagar Singh which had been incorporated on the basis of the ex-parte decree in his favour. This application was dismissed for default on 17.8.1981. The restoration application filed on 21.12.1981 was also dismissed for default on 11.4.1983. Yet again a restoration application was filed on 30.4.1983 which again was dismissed for default on 15.2.1988.

6. It appears that on 16.2.2012 an application was filed by Irfan Ahmad, respondent No. 4. This application was filed on the basis of a family settlement arrived at in a partition suit and certain sale deeds executed by the custodian. The prayer in the application was that since the suit of Ram Sagar Singh had been dismissed finally his name incorporated on the basis of the ex-parte decree in his favour, was liable to be expunged and the names of the original tenure holders were liable to be reentered but since in the meantime the originally recorded tenure holders had died and judgment in a partition suit was passed on the basis of a family settlement and also because certain sale deeds had been obtained by the heirs of the original tenure holders from the custodian, the name of such persons was liable to be entered in the revenue records after expunging the name of the heirs of Ram Sagar Singh.

7. The Deputy Collector by the order date 24.1.2013 directed that a Parvana Amaldaramad be issued for incorporating the names of the persons mentioned in the application dated 16.2.2012, as the orders passed in the suit filed by Ram Sagar Singh, dismissing the same, had attained finality.

8. Aggrieved by this order directing Amaldaramad in the revenue records Panmati, respondent No. 13 filed a Revision No. 642/735/A of 2013 which has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

9. By this very same order dated 27.8.2014 the Additional Commissioner has also allowed an appeal filed by Sadiq Raza and others. It is admitted in the writ petition that against this part of the order, allowing the appeal, a second appeal is pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. It is therefore,