The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for pending appeals to be decided before making any changes to property entries, as well as the jurisdiction of civil courts and the bar on interference with long-standing entries in matters related to composite property.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4.

2. Brief facts of the case are that property in question Khewat No.1/1 and 3 Mahal Umar Daraj Ali Khan Kasba and District-Muzaffar Nagar belongs to predecessor in interest of the petitioner i.e. Great Grandfather, namely, Umar Daraj Ali Khan, the property in question is a non-Z.A. Land which after his death devloved upon his five sons, namely, Nawab Aijaz Ali Khan, Shamshed Ali Khan, Mumtaz Ali Khan, Imtiyaz Ali Khan & Irshad Ali Khan. Out of five sons, three sons and their families migrated to Pakistan and only two sons, namely, Nawab Aijaz Ali Khan and Shamshad Ali Khan remained in India. 3/5th share of entire khewat belong to Mumtaz Ali Khan and Imtiyaz Ali Khan and heirs of Irshad Ali Khan was declared as an evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Shamshad Ali Khan died issue-less, as such, his 1/5th share devloved upon Aizaz Ali Khan his real brother, accordingly, Aizaz Ali Khan became owner to the extent of 2/5th share. It is relevant to point out here that Umar Daraz Ali Khan had two wives. Out of five children, three were born from first wife i.e. Shamshad Ali Khan, Irshad Ali Khan and Mumtaz Ali Khan and the remaining two were born from the second wife of Umar Daraj Ali Khan, namely Mumtaz Ali Khan and Imtiyaz Ali Khan. Irshad Ali Khan had died during the life time of Shamshad Ali Khan and Shamshad Ali Khan died issueless in the year 1947. On the death of Shamshad Ali Khan, the only heir left who could inherit under Muslim law was his real brother, namely, Aizaz Ali Khan, as such, vide order dated 30.9.1948, the share of Shamshad Ali Khan was recorded in the name of Aizaj Ali Khan. As per Muslim law, the heir of Irshad Ali Khan could not inherit the property the property of Shamshad Ali Khan, accordingly, the estate of Shamshad Ali Khan devolved on Aizaz Ali Khan. The name of Aizaj Ali Khan was recorded over 2/5th share on the date when the law of evacuee property came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the name of Aizaj Ali Khan is recorded since 1948. Petitioners' father and other heirs, who have inherited the property of Aizaz Ali Khan transferred their share vide registered sale deed dated 11.10.2001 in respect of Khasra No.1536 in favour of one Neeraj Jain and Neeraj Jain after purchase of the property filed an application to the authorities and prayed that he may be permitted to purchase remaining 3/5th share (evacuee) at the price fixed by the District Magistrate. Assistant Custodian submitted a report to the Board of Revenue and held that according to Khewat, Jamshed Ali Khan and others are shareholders to the extent of 2/5th share and property in question is composite, therefore, process of separation is required by the Competent Officer of Evacuee Property. The matter was referred to the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue for taking necessary action for separation of non evacuee interest from the evacuee, in the meantime a circular dated 17.10.2005 was issued by the Central Government whereby the proceeding under the Act were treated to be abated. The order of abatement was challenged before this Court and ultimately this Court vide order dated 24.11.2009 held that proceeding under the Act have not been abated and are by provisions contained under Section 6 of General Causes Act. Competent Officer proceeded to decide the matter vide order dated 27.110.2010 directed for separation of composite property of Khewat No.1/1 and 3 of Mahal Umar Daraj Ali Khan. The order dated 27.10.2010 has been challenged in Appeal No.36 of 2011, under Section 14 of Evacuee Interest Separation Act, 1951 which is still pending for adjudication in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow. During pendency of the proceeding in Appeal No.36 of 2011, District / Revenue Authorities suo moto initiated ex-parte proceeding for correction of revenu