JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 6. No one appears for the private respondents despite the case being called up in the revised list.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

3. This writ petition, which is filed by the plaintiff-appellant, questions the legality of the order dated 13.02.1980 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad, respondent no.1, in Second Appeal No.489 of 1972-73/Meerut (Jai Prakash v. Sri Dharmi & Ors.); the order dated 02.06.1973 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revenue Appeal No.96 of 1970-Meerut, U.P. (Jai Prakash v. Sri Dharmi) as well as the order dated 18.11.1970 passed by a Judicial Officer (Revenue), Meerut in Suit No.127 of 1969-70 pertaining to Village-Sunehra, Pargana Baghpat, Tehsil Baghpat, under the provisions of Section 229 -B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

4. It appears from the record of the writ petition that the petitioners filed a suit under Section 229 -B read with Section 209 of the Act for declaration that they were the sole bhumidhar in possession and that the entry in favour of the defendant-respondent no.4, Dharmi, is wrong. Further relief was sought for possession after eviction of the defendant-respondent no.4 and for actual physical possession being granted after preparation of 'kurra'. The case of the petitioners is that Baldeo Singh was the sirdar of the land in dispute, who deposited 20 times the rent and became bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. Baldeo Singh thereafter executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners on 11.07.1969 and delivered possession to them. The name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records. It is stated that the defendant-respondent no.4, Dharmi, who also wanted to purchase the plot in dispute, in collusion with the Lekhpal, got his name entered in the village records and tried to take forcible possession from the plaintiff-petitioners. The defendant-respondent no.4 contested the suit. After framing of issues, evidence was led. The case was heard and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioners preferred Appeal No.96 of 1970 in the court of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which also came to be dismissed. The second appeal was dismissed by the respondent no.1, Board of Revenue, by the order dated 13.02.1980.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revenue court is not competent to go into the question of genuineness or validity of the sale-deed on the basis of which instrument the plaintiff-petitioners had preferred the suit under Section 229 -B of the Act. It is stated that the sale deed in question was proved by the attesting witnesses and so there was a presumption that the sale-deed was executed by Baldeo Singh, who had also appeared in the mutation case. It is stated that the defendant-respondent no.4 had filed a complaint under Sections 466 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff-petitioners and also against the witnesses of the sale-deed in question. It is stated that in the complaint case, the Additional Sessions Judge held that the person, Baldeo Singh, who was produced in court was not that Baldeo Singh who the vendor of the sale-deed and the prosecution evidence was not correct. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner-appellants. It is stated that mutation proceedings took place after due proclamation and service of proclamation was affected on the Pradhan himself and no one filed any objection that the sale-deed was not executed by the real Baldeo Singh.

6. In the supplementary affidavit filed today, the petitioners have enclosed a copy of the plaint filed by them as well as a copy of the sale-deed dated 11.07.1969. A copy of the written statement filed by the defendant-respondent no.4 h