JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Rejoinder-affidavit and supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner (Gaon Sabha), Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 7, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 7 has refused to file any reply to the aforesaid supplementary-affidavit and is agreed to argue the matter on merits.

4. As per the office report dated 26.11.2021, notices were sent to the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, however, neither the acknowledgement due nor undelivered envelope is received back till date. No one has put in appearance on their behalf.

5. Learned Senior Counsel states that respondent No. 7 is the vendee from respondent Nos. 3 to 6, who have lost their interest in the matter and even before the revisional Court they did not appear and the matter was contested only by the respondent No. 7.

6. In view of the office report dated 26.11.2021 and the statement made by counsel for the respondent No. 7, service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is deemed to be sufficient and the Court proceeds ex parte against them.

7. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Kabirpur invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.10.1985 as well as order dated 5.10.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No. 2) and order dated 14.8.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner (respondent No. 1).

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights under Section 229B of The UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity, 'UPZA Act') has been decided ex parte against the petitioner and the restoration filed at the behest of the petitioner, against the said ex parte judgment and decree, has illegally been rejected by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the revisional Court.

9. Facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties reveals that Habib Ullah (father of respondent No. 3 to 6) had filed suit dated 10.1.1983 for declaration under Section 229B of UPZA Act for declaring him as a Bhumidhar with transferable right over plot in question i.e. plot No. 59/4 area 0.77 decimal and plot No. 105/2 area 0.40 decimal. Aforesaid suit was filed against Gaon Sabha and the State. Service of notice was properly served upon the parties. Written statement had been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh through District Government Counsel (Revenue) (in brevity, 'DGC (R)'). After exchange of pleadings, aforesaid suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 8.10.1985. Aforesaid judgment was well within the knowledge of DGC (R), who has jotted the remark of 'seen' on the margin of the order sheet dated 20.11.1985. After death of Habib Ullah, name of his sons namely Eqbal Ahmad and others (respondent No. 3 to 6) came to be recorded in the revenue record. Registered sale-deed dated 25.3.2010 was executed by them with respect to the property in question in favour of the respondent No. 7 namely Ashok Kumar Agarwal. On the basis of aforesaid sale-deed, the name of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (respondent No. 7) was recorded in the revenue record.

10. At the very belated stage, Gaon Sabha has filed restoration application dated 24.8.1992 against the judgment and decree dated 8.10.1985, which was ordered to be dismissed in default on 17.4.1993 and against the said order, Gaon Sabha has filed restoration application dated 27.9.1993, which was also dismissed in default on 21.6.1996. Again restoration application was filed on 14.8.1996, which was allowed by order dated 14.7.1997. Being aggrieved against the order dated 14.7.1997, respondent No. 7 has filed revision, which was allowed by order dated 29.3.2004 passed by the revis