The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing before making decisions that affect parties' rights, reinforcing principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar for respondent no.6/1/5, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6/2/1 to 6/2/4, Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5/Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Nigam.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.969, area 1.72 acre and plot no.980, area 2.37 acre, situated in Mauza Rudra Panch Mahal, Jhansi, District Jhansi. One Dhani Ram (father of respondent no.5) filed a civil suit on 10.3.1969, impleading the petitioner as well State of U.P. and others as defendants for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interferring in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 969 and 980 as well as for specific performance. The aforementioned suit was registered as Suit No.219/1969 before Munisaf, Jhansi. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1974 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The decree of the trial court dated 4.10.1974 was maintained in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1976 which has attained finality. On 23.10.1999, a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act"), was filed impleading Dhani Ram (father of respondent no.5) & others as defendants. The aforementioned suit was registered as Suit No.6/1999-2000 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jhansi. The trial court/S.D.O. dismissed the suit as not maintainable vide judgment dated 1.2.2008. Against the judgment dated 1.2.2008, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner at the instance of the contesting respondent which was heard by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and vide judgment dated 30.5.2011, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back before the trial court to decide the suit afresh, after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence. In pursuance of the remand order passed in appeal on 30.5.2011, the trial court proceeded with the matter and after hearing both the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2015. Against the judgment dated 26.2.2015, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner which was allowed vide judgment dated 24.7.2018, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court as well as decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 24.7.2018, petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue/respondent no.1 being Second Appeal No.2489/2018. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 4.9.2019 allowed the second appeal, filed by the petitioner, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2018, passed by the Addl. Commissioner in appeal. Against the judgment dated 4.9.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent no.7/Subhash Chand filed an application dated 13.11.2019 for recalling the judgment dated 4.9.2019 along with the prayers for condonation of delay on the ground that it has been passed in ex parte manner as well as without substituting the legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 who died during pendency of the appeal. Respondent no.1/Board of Revenue vide order dated 11.4.2023, allowed the recall application dated 13.11.2019, setting aside the order dated 4.9.2019 and restored the second appeal on its original number for fresh decision. Hence, this writ petition.

3. This Court entertained the matter on 4.10.2023 and issued notice to the private respondents. In pursuance of the order dated 4.10.2023, private respondent no.7 who has filed recall application before the Board of Revenue as well as respondent nos. 6/1/5 & 6/2/1 to 6/2/4 have put in appearance through their counsel. The service of notice upon the rest of the private re