JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Prakash Chaudhary, Advocate assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing counsel for the State-Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit No. 414 under Section 229 B/ 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect to Plot Nos. 173, 28, 29, 30, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 179, 145 & 33 of Village Machhariya, Tehsil Karwi, District-Chitrakut on the ground that property in dispute has been acquired by petitioner's father Ram Dass who was the sole Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute. The further ground taken in the suit was that after death of Ram Dass Smt. Dulariya, widow of Ram Dass, re-married with Ram Kishun, the brother of Ram Dass and petitioner being son of deceased Ram Dass is the heir as provided under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The further allegation in the plaint was that Smt. Dulariya was re-married thus, she lost all the interest, if any, over the property in dispute. Smt. Dulariya contested the proceeding of aforementioned suit denying the plaint allegations.

3. The trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.1990 decreed the plaintiff's suit No. 414 in respect to all the plots except plot No.33 under Section 229B/209 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. Trial Court while decreeing the plaintiff's suit has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties and recorded finding of fact while deciding the Issue No.2 that plaintiff (Kalloo) is son of deceased Ram Dass. Trial Court while deciding the Issue Nos. 1 & 3 has recorded finding of fact that plaintiff (Kalloo) is Bhumidhar with transferable right of the plot in dispute and Smt. Dulariya had no right to sell the property because she was not recorded as Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute.

4. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.09.1990, two appeals under Section 331 (3) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed. One appeal was filed by the defendant Shiv Prashad and another appeal was filed by plaintiff-Kalloo before the Court of Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner Administration, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dismissed both the appeals vide Judgment dated 31.07.1992 recorded finding of fact that plaintiff Kalloo is son of deceased Ram Dass.

5. Against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1992 passed by Additional Commissioner, second appeal was filed by the defendants before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad which was registered as Second Appeal No. 6 of 1992-93. The Board of Revenue vide Judgment dated 12.04.2001 allowed the second appeal setting side the orders passed by Courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence, this writ petition.

6. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the following interim order dated 10.05.2001

;kph dk dFku gS fd ;kphx.k U;k;ky; rFkk izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; nksuks us viuh QkbafMx vfHkfyf[kr dh gS fd dYyw jkenkl dk yM~dk gS rFkk f}rh; vihyh; U;k;y; bls vikLr ugh dj ldrk gSA

vaxhdz`r A

ukfVl tkjh gks A

izfri{kh la0 1 dh vksj ls LFkk;h vf/koDrk rFkk izfri{kh la0 9 dh vksj ls Jh oh0 ds0 flag us uksfVl Lohdkj fd;k gSA izfri{kh la0 2 yxk;r 8 dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl tkjh gksA izfri{kh la0 2 yxk;r 8 ij rkehyk gks tkus ds i'pkr bls lwphc} fd;k tk;sA

bl U;k;ky; ds vfxze vkns'kksa rd vkisf{kr vkns'k fnukad 12-04-2001 dk fdz;kUo;u LFkfxr jgsxkA

7. In pursuance of the order dated 10.05.2001, contesting respondents have put in an appearance and filed their counter-affidavit. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder