JUDGMENT :

1. On the previous occasion i.e. 06.03.2019, I had heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. The matter is listed today for dictation of judgment.

3. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 229 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgments and orders dated 31.01.2006 and 24.04.2006 passed by the Additional Commission, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and the Board of Revenue, respectively.

4. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner filed two declaratory suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. The first suit no. 32/79, re-numbered as 31/2003, sought a declaration regarding 4 plots and was filed arraying Harishchandra s/o Molu, Deshraj and Dayaram s/o Baldeo as defendants on the plea that Harishchandra was wrongly recorded over the said 4 plot, in collusion with the Lekhpal. It was alleged that Harishchandra is not his (plaintiffs) brother and is the son of Molu. Harishchandra could not be the brother of the plaintiff who is son of Bansi.

5. The plaintiff also filed another suit no. 19/47