The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-B No.13084 of 1983 as well as Misilband Register placed before the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.

3. Since common issues are involved in both the petition hence both the writ petition are heard together and are being decided by a common order.

4. Brief facts of the cases are that the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed by Purshottami as well as Chauthi impleading the State and Gaon Sabha as defendants. The suit filed by Purshottami was registered as Suit No.150/235/75 and the suit filed by Chauthi was registered as Suit No.151/1977 pleading that plaintiffs are Sirdar of the plot in question and they are in possession of the plot in question for last 30 years. They further pleaded that in the proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") an order dated 23.2.1967 was passed by the Consolidation Officer declaring the Purshottami and Chauthi as Sirdar of the plot in question but the entries were not corrected accordingly, hence the suit. Written statement was filed by the State as well as Gaon Sabha denying the plaint allegations. Seven issues were framed before the trial Court and parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 28.1.1978 decreed the aforementioned suit filed by the petitioners (Purshottami and Chauthi). Against the judgement and decree of trial Court dated 28.1.1978, two appeals were filed before the Commissioner by State of U.P. only. The appeal filed by State was registered as Appeal No.669-A-1978 and 668-A-1978. Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur clubbed as well as heard the aforementioned appeal together and vide judgement dated 26.10.1979 dismissed the appeal filed by State of U.P. recording finding of fact that the plea raised by the State is bared by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. Against the judgment and decree of first appellate Court/Additional Commissioner dated 26.10.1979, two second appeals were filed before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, which were registered as Appeal Nos.36 & 37 of 1979-1980. The aforementioned appeals were clubbed and heard together by learned Member of Board of Revenue and vide judgment dated 14.9.1983, the aforementioned second appeals were allowed and the judgement and decree passed by trial Court and first appellate Court have been set aside as well as the plaintiff suit were dismissed, hence Writ Petition No.13084 of 1983 & 13085 of 1983 for the following reliefs:

Writ-B No.13084 of 1983 (A) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case for the purpose of quashing the impugned order dated September 14, 1983 (Annexure 3) and to quash the same;

(B) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order during the pendency of the writ petition;

Writ-B No.13085 of 1983 "(A) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case for the purpose of quashing the impugned order dated September 14, 1983 (Annexure 3) and to quash the same;

(B) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order during the pendency of the writ petition;"

5. The aforementioned writ petitions were admitted on 25.10.1983 and operation of the order passed by the Board of Revenue was stayed. In pursuance of the aforementione