The main legal point established in the judgment is that the partition of land must be in accordance with the principles provided under Rule 131 of the Rules.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, for the contesting respondents-4 to 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 to 26.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Collector dated 10.08.2015, approving the kurra and passing final decree in partition suit, Additional Commissioner dated 20.10.2015 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.05.2016, dismissing the appeal and second of the petitioners in the suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. Raghuveer and Ashok (respondents-4 and 5) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 77 of 2013-14) under Section 176 of the Act, for division of their 1/9 share in plots 54 (area 0.1900 hectare), 55 (area 0.8980 hectare), 66 (area 0.6450 hectare) and 67 (area 3.1490 hectare) of village Jasroop Nagar, Dastoi Road, tahsil and district Hapur. Some of the defendants filed their separate written statement and contested the suit on the ground that land in dispute had already been partitioned between the parties by metes and bound. However, Assistant Collector, by order dated 27.08.2014 passed the preliminary decree, holding the share of the plaintiffs as 1/9 jointly. Share of the defendants have also been decided. None of the parties challenged the preliminary decree. In pursuance of preliminary decree, Lekhpal prepared kurra and submitted in Court on 24.09.2014. There were two plaintiffs and 25 defendants but Lekhpal prepared 8 kurra, allotting kurra to several co-sharers jointly. The co-sharers whose kurra were jointly allotted had no objection.

4. Ompal (defendant-1), Lekhpal (defendant-3), Raj Kumar, Baburam, Dinesh (defendants-7 to 9), Sunil alias Ombir and others (heirs of defendant-10), Dharmpal and Devendra (defendants-14 and 15) filed their separate objections to the kurra and stated that kurra was prepared in collusion with the plaintiffs without spot inspection. There has been private partition between the co-sharers and they were in separate possession over it but kurra was not prepared according to the previous possession of the parties. Plot 55 situates on Dastoi-Hapur road and is land of commercial value but they were illegally not allotted this plot in their kurra. In support of objections, they also examined Dharmpal (DW-1), Baburam (DW-2), Vishal alias Daini (DW-3), Rampal (DW-4) and Charan Singh (DW-5). On behalf of the plaintiff, Ashok was examined as (PW-1). Statement of Mohd. Riyazuddin alias Raju, Lekhpal was also recorded. Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 10.08.2015, held that there was no previous partition between the parties. Lekhpal has prepared kurra according to previous possession of the parties and there is no illegality in it. On these findings, he affirmed the kurra and passed final decree in partition suit.

5. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 61 of 2014-15) from the aforesaid decree. Additional Commissioner, after hearing the parties, by order dated 20.10.2015 held that Lekhpal in his statement has stated that kurra was prepared according to previous possession of the parties. Previous partition between the parties is not proved. Assistant Collector has not committed any illegality in affirming the kurra. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a second appeal (registered as Second Appeal No. 17, ZA (M) of 2015-16) from the aforesaid decree. In the meantime, the allottee of kurra-1 also got an order of Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 143 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 16 of 2015-16) against that order. Board of Revenue, U.P. consolidated Second Appeal and the Revision and heard together and by order dated 12.05.2016, affirmed the findings of Courts below and dismissed second appeal and revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

6. I have considered the arguments of the counsels for the