JUDGMENT :

Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed from an order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad dated 30.3.1999 passed in Revision Nos. 2 and 3 of 1996-97, both titled M/s. Mahamaya General and Finance Company Ltd. v. Dr. Prem Narain and others. By the said order, the Board has allowed both the Revisions aforesaid filed from an order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut, dated 16.9.1996 passed in Revision No. 42 of 1995-96 and Revision No. 16 of 1995-96 filed by M/s. Mahamaya General and Finance Company Ltd., and held that the preliminary and final decrees dated 15.1.1992 and 12.5.1993 passed in Suit No. 6 of 1987 are both without jurisdiction, as also the consequential orders of auction of the suit property, passed under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act').

2. The proceedings leading to the impugned orders passed by the Board of Revenue, in the two connected Revisions, are these: The petitioners, who filed this writ petition were four in number, some of whom are now represented by their legal representatives. They filed Suit No. 6 of 1987 on 12.10.1987, under Section 176 of the Act for the relief of partition and khaas possession. The claim of the petitioners, who were plaintiffs to the suit, was that they are bhumidhars of a half share in the suit property, comprised of khasra No. 188, admeasuring 15 Biswa, 5 Biswans and khasra No. 191 admeasuring 13 Biswa, both part of Khata No. 68, situate in village Chikambarpur, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad. The said property is hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners claim to a half share in the suit property was to the effect that the other half share belonged to M/s. Mahamaya General and Finance Company Ltd., respondent No. 3 to this writ petition.

3. It appears that the suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.1992, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dadri. The said judgment and decree was a preliminary decree, that declared a half share for the petitioners on one hand and the other half for the third respondent. On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary decree, proceedings for preparation of a final decree commenced and the Trial Court called for a report from the Lekhpal asking him to draw lots, in terms of which shares of parties would be separated by metes and bounds and khaas possession delivered. The Lekhpal submitted his report and the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 12.5.1993 confirmed the lots drawn up by the Lekhpal, directing drawing up of a final decree in those terms.

4. It is the petitioners' case that respondent No. 3, Mahamaya General and Finance Company Ltd., did not file any restoration application seeking to set aside the preliminary decree, and the preliminary decree became final. It is the further case of the petitioners that the third respondent, however, filed a restoration application on 26th May, 1993 to set aside the final decree dated 12.5.1993, and prayed that opportunity of hearing be afforded to them with permission to file objections against drawing of lots. The plaintiffs, that is to say, the petitioners filed objections dated 30th June, 1993 to the said application for restoration, dated 26.5.1993 made on behalf of respondent No. 3, as aforesaid. The Restoration Application brought by respondent No. 3 was allowed on 22.9.1993, and the order dated 12.5.1993 directing a final decree to be drawn up, was set aside. The matter was posted to 20.9.1993 for the purpose of hearing parties regarding preparation of a final decree. The Sub-Divisional Officer, while hearing the application for preparation of the final decree vide his order dated 6.7.1995 held that the total area of the land in dispute is 1 Bigha, 15 Bishwa, 5 Biswansi, which is less than 3-1/8 acres, and therefore, the provisions of Section 178 of the Act would come into play.