A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Ms. Jyoti Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shyam Lal Yadav/Sri. Aprajit Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6, the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh for respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed by Ramdei (mother of respondent No - 5 & 6) under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to plot no.195M, area 0.384 hect., situated at village Gopalpur Taluka Kodh, Pargana Bhadohi, Tahsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi impleading one Mridula Devi, Gram Panchayat & state as defendant. The aforementioned suit was decreed in ex parte manner vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2020 for recording the name of respondent No.5 &6 over plot No.195 M area 0.293 hectare. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.2020 recall/restoration application dated 22.7.2021 along with prayer for condonation of delay supported with affidavit was filed by the petitioners (Sons of Mridula Devi) which was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2021. Against the order dated 31.12.2021, Revision No.82/2022 was filed by respondent No.5 & 6 before respondent no.2/Board of Revenue under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been allowed in part vide order dated 13.4.2022 setting aside the order dated 31.12.2021 and remitting the matter back before the trial court to decide the restoration as well as delay condonation matter afresh. Hence, this writ petition against the order dated 13.4.2022, passed by respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P at Allahabad.

3. This Court entertained the matter on 13.5.2022 and granted interim protection in the matter.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 13.5.2022 the parties have exchanged their affidavit.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, has been decided in arbitrary and ex parte manner. She further submitted that declaratory suit cannot be decided without framing issues in the suit but in the instant matter the suit for declaration has been decreed by passing cryptic judgment as well as without framing issues in the suit. She further submitted that on the recall application as well as delay condonation application filed by the petitioners,notice were issued to other side, accordingly, ex parte decree has been set aside and suit proceeding has been restored on its original number to decide the proceeding afresh but the Board of Revenue has illegally set aside the order dated 31.12.2021 restoring the suit on its original number on the ground that restoration application as well as delay condonation application has been allowed by the trial court in the arbitrary manner without notice & opportunity to other side. She further submitted that the impugned revisional order dated 13.4.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue be set aside and the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the trial court, restoring the suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on its original number for fresh trial, be maintained.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shyam Lal Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6 submitted that recall/restoration application cannot be allowed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the other side. He further submitted that there was no sufficient service upon the respondent No.5&6 as such the recall application as well as delay condonation application filed by petitioners cannot be allowed, hence, the Board of Revenue has rightly exercised the jurisdiction, setting aside the order, dated 31.12..2021 allowing the recall/delay condonation application and remitting the matter to decide the restoration proceeding as well as delay condonation proceeding afresh. He submitted that no interference is required against the order of Board of Revenue and wri