The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of framing issues and providing an opportunity to lead evidence in cases under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 14 and learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner filed a case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Tehsidar vide order dated 20.12.2002 ordered to record the name of petitioner along with contesting respondents as legal representative of deceased Ram Singar. Agaisnt the order dated 20.12.2002 contesting respondents filed restoration application, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2003. Contesting respondents challenged the order dated 10.09.2003 in appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.05.2004 accordingly, petitioner challenged the appellate order in revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2012. Petitioner challenged the orders through Writ-C No. 7735 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2019 with direction that petitioner's second appeal pending before Board of Revenue arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act be disposed of within a period of three months and interim protection was granted for the period of three months. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration in respect of disputed plots on 08.05.2005 after the order allowing appeal of respondent passed on 24.05.2004 arising out of proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the trial court vide judgment dated 16.11.2007 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner as not maintainable without framing issues. Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2012. Petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2019, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner. One suit for partition being suit no. 806 of 2012 filed by contesting respondents in respect of residential house is pending in civil court, in which petitioner was impleaded by the court.

3. This court while entertaining the writ petition has passed detailed interim order dated 01.10.2021 which run as follows:-

"Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, the counsel for respondent nos. 14 and 16.

he present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 16.11.2007, 30.10.2012 and 20.11.2019 passed by the revenue courts dismissing Suit No. 109 of 2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and also dismissing the consequential appeals filed by the petitioner.

The facts, in short, are that the petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right in the suit property claiming himself to be a co-tenure holder along with the respondents in the suit property. The respondents who were the defendants in the said case filed an application stating that the petitioner was not the son of the original tenure holder as he had been adopted by some other person and in public dealings had represented himself as the son of his adoptive father. It appears that the defendants had also filed the registered adoption deed in support of their averment that the petitioner cannot claim any tenurial right by succession in the original suit property on the basis of being the biological son of the original tenure holder as he had already been adopted by some other person and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial court without framing any issues, relied on the adoption deed dismissed the suit.

It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the adoption deed was not proved and merely because it was a registered document, the same could not have been relied upon and oral testimony of the petitioner was necessary in the said case. It was argued that the presumption in favour of the adoption deed could n