Failure to comply with procedural rules in partition cases necessitates reconsideration to ensure equitable distribution in accordance with legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Devesh Kumar Verma on behalf of respondent no.10, Sri Sudhir Bharti on behalf of Gaon Sabha and Sri A.K.Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. One Mussamt Salami had executed a registered sale deed on 6.2.1984 in favour of her three sons-in-law namely:Iddan (father of petitioners), Fazil (father of respondent nos.6, 7 and 8) and Asgar, respondent no.9 of her entire shares of her land in question on due consideration.

3. Subsequently, Fazil has executed a sale deed on 3.8.1987 in favour of Fekani (mother of petitioners) of some part of the land in question.

4. After death of Fekani, names of the petitioner were entered in the revenue records as legal heirs.

5. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 filed a partition suit under Section 176 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1950') on 5.12.2009 for partition of aforesaid part of land in dispute being a co-sharer.

6. In the said proceedings, Halka Lekhpal submitted a Kurrafat on 17.1.2011 and according to petitioners same were against the provisions of Rule 131 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Rules of 1952'), as such they have filed objections on 23.2.2011. For reference, relevant part of objections are mentioned hereinafter:

7. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.3.2011 accepted Kurrafat submitted by the Halka Lekhpal and rejected objections filed by the petitioners. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

8. Petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an Appeal before Commissioner, Gorakhpur and relevant grounds taken therein are mentioned hereinafter:

9. Petitioners have filed a written submissions and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

10. Commissioner, Gorakhpur dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 22.3.2018 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue wherein following substantial questions of law were raised:

"A. Whether, both the Courts below justified in passing impugned judgment and order in Uttar Violation of the law?

B. Whether, the Lower Appellate Court has justified the impugned order without recording his own finding with regard to grounds taken by the appellants that all the parties are entitled to obtain share equally upon the road side and the learned trial court has justified by passing impugned order against the law?"

12. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.10.2024 dismissed the Second Appeal that no substantial questions of law was involved. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that objections were filed to Kurrafat, however, it was rejected without any consideration on basis of objections. Report of the Lekhpal was accepted without considering that it was contrary to the provisions of Rule 131 of the Rules, of 1952.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that all the parties ought to have been given equal share on the P.W.D. Road which was admittedly not granted only on a ground that land has been sold and there are constructions, without specific area and the objections were illegally rejected.

15. Appellate Court and Board of Revenue have failed to consider specific