Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner’s father, namely, Sri Jamuna Prasad filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act”) in respect to plot no.196, area 1.03, situated at village Barkhera Yasin, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, impleading Om Prakash, Gaon Sabha and state as defendants. Eight issues were framed including the issue relating to Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) and parties led oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1984, decreed the plaintiff’s suit, declaring the plaintiff as bhumidhar with transferable right in respect to disputed plot. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.11.1984, State of U.P. filed a revision before the Commissioner which was heard and dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1985. State of U.P. Challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1984 as well as 28.9.1985 before the Board of Revenue by way of revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which was heard and dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 26.4.1994. State of U.P. filed a review application against the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 26.4.1994 which was registered as Review No.75 of 1996-97. The Board of Revenue vide judgment/order dated 3.2.2005 allowed the review application, set aside the judgment and decree passed by all the three courts as well as dismissed the plaintiff’s suit as barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:-

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judgment and order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad (Annexure No.4 to the Writ Petition)

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha not to cut trees standing in the disputed land in question during the pendency of the instant writ petition.”

3. This Court entertained the matter on 26.5.2005 and stayed the operation of the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 26.5.2005, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of gaon sabha and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit in the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed on behalf of the petitioner’s father was decreed by the trial court after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He further submitted that one of the issues framed in the suit, was regarding bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He submitted that the finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court that plaintiff is entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right/grove holder of the plot in question. He submitted that the State of U.P. has filed revision before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.9.1985 and further revision filed before the Board of Revenue by the State of U.P. was also dismissed on merit vide judgment dated 26.4.1994. He submitted that in place of filing the appeal as well as