The Court emphasized that once a suit has been decided based on evidence adduced by the parties, new evidence cannot be considered in a subsequent writ petition filed after a long period, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Priyansh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitnedra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Khasra No.24 area 6 bigha 5 biswa situated in Village-Dantal, Pargana, Tahsil & District-Meerut was declared surplus along with other plots in the proceeding under the U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On Land Holdings Act, 1960, accordingly, the same was vested in State. The aforementioned Khasra No.24 before declaration as surplus land was recorded in the name of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited, namely, Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala, Meerut. The aforementioned Khasra No.24 area 5 bigha was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father, namely, Sri Dharam Chand Sood vide order dated 16.6.1972 / 24.8.1972 considering his services in Indian Army. On the basis of aforementioned lease, the name of petitioner's father was recorded as Sirdar in the revenue records on 12.9.1972. Petitioner's father remained in possession of the khasra no.24 area 5 bigha and in the due course of time, he was recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights. Petitioner who is son of Dharam Chand Sood also joined Indian Army in life time of his father and had retired from the post of Lieutenant Colonel under the voluntary retirement scheme. Petitioner being only legal heir of his father inherited the land of Khasra No.24 area 5 bigha and petitioner remained in possession over the same. Agricultural work was being conducted on the aforesaid land earlier by the petitioner's father and after death of petitioner's father petitioner was managing the agricultural work in respect to the Khasra no.24. After death of the petitioner's father, the name of petitioner was not recorded in the revenue records due to manipulation of the private respondents and the name of private respondent was accordingly, entered into the revenue records, as such, petitioner filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 on 26.4.2006 impleading State of U.P. & private defendants for declaration of his right in respect to khasra no.24 area 5 bigha by recording his name after expunging the name of defendant nos.2 to 12. The aforementioned suit was registered as Case No.115 of 2006. State / defendant no.1 filed his written statement in the aforementioned suit stating that the suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, other legal plea was also taken in the written statement filed by State. Private defendants have also filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations. The issues were framed in the suit on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Parties adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. Respondent no.5-Sub-Divisional Magistrate heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence adduced by the respective parties in the suit. Respondent no.5 / Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2008 dismissed the plaintiff suit. Against the judgment of trial Court dated 30.1.2008 plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent no.3/ Additional Commissioner vide judgment dated 13.4.2009. Against the judgment dated 13.4.2009 passed by Additional Commissioner, petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before respondent no.2/ Board of Revenue. The same was registered as Second Appeal No.9 (ZA) (M) of 2010-11. The aforementioned second appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.3.2011, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging all the three judgment dated 30.1.2008, 13.4.2009 & 11.3.2011 passed by the trial Court, 1st Appellate Court and IInd Appellate Court.

3. The stamp reporter has reported laches of 3516 days (i.e. about 10 years) in filing the writ petition which has been explained by the petitioner in the writ pet