The court upheld the finality of the land partition decree, confirming that all procedural safeguards were adhered to in preparing and confirming the Kurra, thus denying the petitioners' claims against past rulings.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Madhu Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.4, 5, 6 & 7 and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.8 i.e. Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief fact of the case are that one Umar was the original tenure holder / bhumidhar of Khasra No.53 area 3.092 acre, Khasra No. 120 area 0.95 acre, Khasra No. 215 area 2.74 acre, situated in Village- Rudrapur, Pargana & Tahsil- Pooranpur, District- Pilibhit and Khasara No.84 area 0.93 acre situated in Village- Loharpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Pooranpur, District- Pilibhit. The family pedigree of Umar will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-

3. On 1.8.1985, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 along with Jeewan Lal filed a suit, under Section 229B/176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration that they are co-sharer of the plots in dispute as well as for partition of their 1/2 share, which was registered as Suit No.38 of 1984-85. Trial Court (Sub- Divisional Officer, Pooranpur) vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.1990 decreed the aforementioned suit filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5. Against the judgment dated 27.9.1990, passed by the trial Court petitioner's father (Pothi Ram) filed an appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which was registered as Appeal No. 10/ 09 of 1990. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 22.4.1991. The restoration/ delay condonation application dated 11.9.1991 against the order dated 22.4.1991 was also dismissed for non prosecution on 21.2.2002. On 8.10.2002, again restoration/ delay condonation application was filed on behalf of petitioners against the order dared 21.2.2002. The aforementioned restoration application dated 8.10.2002 was rejected by respondent no.2/ Additional Commissioner vide order dated 3.5.2011. Petitioners challenged the order dated 3.5.2011 through revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 56 of 2011. The aforementioned revision was admitted and interim order to maintain status quo was passed but later on the revision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.3.2013 with liberty to file review application before the Commissioner. The review application/ delay condonation application dated 10/11.10.2013 was rejected by respondent no.2/ Additional Commissioner vide order dated 11.2.2014. Petitioners challenged the order dated 11.2.2014 through Revision No. 38 of 2013-14 before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2017. Petitioners challenged the orders dated 3.5.2011, 11.2.2014 & 26.12.2017 before this Court through Writ B No. 4302 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2018. Petitioners also filed a Writ B No. 296 of 2019 before this Court against the order dated 11.2.2014, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2019. In view of the finality attached to the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.9.1990 for declaration as well as partition, the Lekhpal has prepared the kurra/ report dated 24.2.2015, which was confirmed by respondent no.3/ Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 24.4.2018.9. This Court in the recent judgment dated 10.8.2023 passed in Sudheer Kumar Jain (Supra) has followed the ratio of law laid down in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) and held that Collector or Additional Collector have no jurisdiction to pass the order in the proceeding under Section 157-AA/ 167 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act vesting the land in State. Petitioners c