Parties not involved in a second appeal lack standing to challenge the Board of Revenue's decision regarding land ownership.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. kedar Nath Mishra holding brief of Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastva, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state respondents and Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Land Management Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot Nos-258/7 area 0.405 hectare, 134/3 area 0.709 hectare, 360/2 are 0.069 hectare, 28/3 area 0.061 hectare, 32/2 area 0.142 hectare, 32/2 area 0.522 hectare, 257/3 area 0.364 hectare, 34/2 area 0.563 hectare, total 10 plots, area 3.766 hectare of Khata No.273 situated in village-Baraudia Rine, Pergana-Lalitpur, Tahsil-Pali, District-Lalitpur belong to one Durjan. The family pedigree of Durjan will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-

Smt. Harbu daughter of Mulla filed a Suit under Section-229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A & L.R., Act) for declaration that she is co-sharer of the plot in dispute which was registered as Case No.176 of 1982-83/207 of 1987-88. The trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 25.2.1988 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Respondent No.4/Rajdhar challenged the judgment & decree of trial Court dated 25.2.1988 through appeal under Section-331(3) of U.P.Z.A & L.R., Act, 1950 before Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No.54/20 of 1987-88. The Additional Commissioner heard the aforementioned appeal filed by respondent No.4 and vide judgment dated 30.6.1998 rejected the same. Respondent No.4 challenged the judgment of appellate Court as well as trial Court through second appeal under section - 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L.R., Act, 1950 before Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, which was registered as Second Appeal No.6 of 1998-99 (Computerised Case No.AL199806459912). The learned member, Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 25.1.2023 allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment & decree of trial Court dated 25.2.1988 as well as appellate Court dated 30.6.1998 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit hence this Writ Petition on behalf of petitioners for following reliefs:-

"1. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.1.2023 passed by respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj (Annexure No.3) to the writ petition.

2. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents 1st set not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect to arazi no.258/7, area 0.405 hect., 251/1, area 0.526 hect., 22/2, area 0.405 hect., 134/3, area 0.709 hect., 360/2, area 0.069 hect., 28/3, area 0.061 hect., 32/2, area 0.142 hect., 35/2, area 0.522 hect., 257/3, area 0.364 hect, 34/2, area 0.563 hect, total 10 plots, total area 3.766 hect. of khata no.273, situated in revenue village Baraudia Rine, Paragana-Lalitpur, Tehsil Pali, District Lalitpur."

3. On 21.7.2023 following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case at some length prays that he may be allowed some time to bring on record certain documents which are necessary for adjudication of the case by way of supplementary affidavit.

2. Time prayed for is allowed.

3. List on 04.09.2023."

4. In Compliance of the order dated 21.7.2023, no supplementary affidavit has been filed by petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that legal heir of Smt. Harbu has transferred the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Kamla & Smt. Ram Kishori on 23.7.2013 during pendency of second appeal before board of revenue in which no interim order was operating. Smt. Kamla & Smt. Ram Kishori further transferred the property in favour of petitioners on 7.12.2022 but without impleading the petitioners in second appeal the impugned judgment, allowing the second appeal has been passed in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that board of revenue has exceeded his second appellate jurisdiction in entering into fact