JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. V. K. Agnihotri and Sri Binod Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2, Mr. K. K. Singh, counsel for respondent no.3- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Anshu Chaudhary, counsel for respondent Nos. 5, 6, 9 & 10 only.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner nos.1 & 2, namely, Nannoo Singh and petitioner nos.3 & 4 have filed a Suit No.9 of 1982, under Section 229B / 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The family pedigree has been mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the plaint, which is as follows:

3. Disputed property as mentioned in Schedule Ka and Kha in the plaint of Suit No.9 of 1982 was initially recorded in the name of Chhiddu Singh and after death of Chhiddu Singh his sons, namely, Natthu Singh & Jalim Singh were recorded. After death of Nathu Singh, his share was devolved upon his widow Smt. Dhropa Devi. During consolidation operation some part of the land was recorded separately in the name of Dhropa Devi and some part was recorded jointly in the name of Jalim Singh. Dhropa Devi died during life time of Jalim Singh, as such, Jalim Singh became owner of the disputed property. Nannoo Singh, Hari Singh and Roop Singh were sons of Jalim Singh in which Roop Singh died on 11.1.1978 and Hari Singh died on 26.8.1978 during life time of their father Jalim Singh. Jalim Singh died on 8.9.1978. At the time of death of Jalim Singh only one son Nannoo Singh was alive and Man Singh, Bhudeo and Sri Ram became sons of Late Hari Singh in which Man Singh has also died earlier. Hridesh Kumar, Rajendera Kumar, Birjendra Kumar, Sarvesh Kumar, Ram Murti and Raj Kumar became sons of Late Roop Singh. There was equal share (1/3) of three sons of Jalim Singh in the disputed land. Petitioners moved a mutation application which was rejected and respondent nos. 5 to 10 illegally mutated their names in the entire share of Dhropa Devi. The aforementioned Suit No.9 of 1982 filed under Section 229B / 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.1987 by the trial Court. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court respondent nos.5 to 10 preferred an Appeal No.63 / 1986-87 before the Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.1987 set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter back before the trial Court for decision of suit afresh. Against the remand order, trial Court again heard the suit and vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.1988 decreed the suit partly and dismissed in part. Against the judgment and decree of trial Court, petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner and Additional Commissioner vide judgment dated 20.3.1991 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court. Against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated 22.8.1988, respondent nos.5 to 10 filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue who vide judgment dated 19.1.2011 allowed the second appeal and set aside the order of the appellate Court dated 20.3.1991 resulting into affirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 22.8.1988, hence this writ petition.

4. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 11.5.2012 passed the following interim order:

" Issue notice.

Notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Shri D.D. Chauhan, Advocate, has pur in appearance for respondent no.3 and Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for respondent no.4. Therefore, notices need not be served to re