JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The writ petition arises out of a declaratory suit filed by the respondents seeking to be declared the bhumidhars of plot nos. 276, 292, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299 and 308 situated in Village Rakshpalpur, Pargana Ekhla, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur. The trial court dismissed the suit on 14.11.2018.

3. Against this order, the plaintiff-respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court has been set-aside and the suit has been decreed finding the claim in the suit to be proved.

4. A short counter affidavit was filed by Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. He had also made a statement that he did not propose to file any other document or detailed counter affidavit in the matter. Even, Shri Kshitij Shailendra stated that he did not propose to file any reply to the short counter affidavit.

5. Accordingly, the matter is being heard finally with the consent of the parties.

6. The contention of Shri Kshitij Shailendra is that the suit purporting to be under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed on 09.11.2015 as his clear from the copy of the plaint filed along with the writ petition. He has submitted that Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,could not have been invoked as on the day the plaint was filed, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act stood repealed and replaced by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The suit therefore, must necessarily be considered to be one under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding primarily that the plots in suit were recorded in the revenue records as khalihan and manure pit. The land in suit was therefore, land of public utility, wherein no rights can accrue in favour of any person. The judgment and decree in a declaratory suit under Section 144 of the Revenue Code, 2006, is appealable under Section 207. No appeal was filed and straightaway a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, which again could have been filed only under Section 210 of the Code, although it is titled as one under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

7. The revision, it is submitted was not maintainable and could not have been entertained in view of the amendment made in Section 210, itself, which provides that no revision lies against a judgment or order against which an appeal is provided under the Code.

8. On the merits he has submitted that declaratory suit could not have been filed without first applying for mutation as is provided under Section 34(5) of the Land Revenue Act and Section 37 of the Revenue Code, 2006.

9. Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is filed by persons who were not parties in either the suit or the revision. He has next submitted that proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act had been drawn against Kusum Chandra Singh, respondent no. 4, which proceedings were ultimately dropped. Therefore, the suit has rightly been decreed by the Board of Revenue. The plaintiff-respondents are in possession since the time of their forefathers, who had been granted an Izajatnama of the land in suit by the Zamindar on 01.07.1948. He has also referred to page 21 of the short counter affidavit filed by him to submit that a public interest litigation was also filed, which was also dismissed taking note that proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been dropped against the plaintiff-respondents. It is therefore, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. In rejoinder,