JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be kept on record.

2. The petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, on 24.12.2013. Thereafter, some report etc. were taken and ultimately the Suit came up for hearing and was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 18.6.2018. Dismissal was essentially on the ground that the Suit was not maintainable under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, after the commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeals saying that the suit was not maintainable under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act after the commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Certain observations on merit were also made.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Suit itself was filed on 24.12.2013, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act were applicable and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in mentioning that the Suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act.

4. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the U.P. Revenue Code,2006, commenced only after it was notified on 11.2.2016 and, therefore, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act alone would apply. It was also argued that as per Section 230 of the Code, suits which were filed before the commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, would be decided in accordance with the law which prevailed prior to the date of commencement.

5. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Sri Azad Rai, however, opposed the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the suit was decided in the year 2018 the same was not maintainable and, therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the suit.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that when the Suit was filed on 24.12.2013 then it was rightly filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. The Court below ought to have entertained and decided the suit as per the law which was prevailing before the commencement of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

7. Further, I am of the view that the findings which have been given in the orders on merit also were not sustainable as the Courts below had found the suit itself was not maintainable.

8. Under such circumstances, the order dated. 18.6.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khurja, the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration III and the order dated 13.3.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue Circuit Court -1, Meerut, are set aside.

9. The original suit which the petitioner had filed shall be restored to its original number and shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.

10. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.