The statutory remedy available under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act prevails over writ jurisdiction under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

A revenue suit being Revenue Suit No. 22/1067 of 2008-09 ‘Deepak Tiwari vs. Dinesh Chandra and Others’ was filed by the plaintiff (respondent no. 1 herein) seeking a declaration by invoking the provisions contained under Section 229B of the Zamindari Abolition Act. At the time when the Suit itself was instituted by the plaintiffs, i.e. as back as on 29.06.2009, in relation to the property, which was more particularly described in relief clause of the plaint, which constituted to be Khet No. 622-gha having an area of 0.231 hectares, it was sought to be declared as to be a bhumidhar land lying under Shreni 1. When the said Suit was instituted, it was as against as many as about 16 defendants to the Suit, but the petitioner who claims himself to be the purchaser of the property in dispute, which was a subject matter of the aforesaid Suit, even much prior in time, i.e. on 23.07.2002 by virtue of a registered sale deed was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings of the Suit under Section 229B, i.e. Revenue Suit No. 22/1067 of 2008-09.

2. The petitioner contends that there was apparent malafides in relation to the manner of institution of the Suit itself, because for the reason being that in a proceedings which was simultaneously initiated on a criminal side by registration of an FIR on 29.07.2007, the factum of vesting of the right in favour of the petitioner by the predecessor owner in favour of the petitioner was reflected in the FIR, which was filed by the respondents against the present petitioner.

3. What he tries to derive from aforesaid arguments, the said registration of the FIR is that as soon as the respondents had registered an FIR and they referred to the sale deed of the petitioner by virtue of which the right was vested with the plaintiff, that itself discloses the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was well within the knowledge of the right being created by the predecessor owner in favour of the petitioners to the sale deed executed in his favour, but despite of it, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent/plaintiff has chosen the predecessor-owner of the petitioner, only to be made as a defendant to the Suit irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff-respondent had the knowledge that the petitioner after the purchase made by him on 23.07.2002, has stepped into the shoes of the defendants of the Suit, who obviously after execution of sale deed on 23.07.2002, had lost their interest over the subject matter of Suit under Section 229B.

4. As already observed above that the said Suit for declaration under Section 229B in relation to the property in dispute, which stood purchased by the petitioner it was instituted only on 29.06.2009, and as per the case of the petitioner it was expected that when the knowledge of the sale deed dated 23.07.2002 executed in favour of the petitioner was in the knowledge of the respondent, their grievance is that since it was affecting the rights and title of the petitioner, which was sought to be hampered by way of a declaration at the behest of the plaintiff/respondent they ought to have been impleaded as a party to the Suit.

5. Be that as it may, ultimately the Suit proceeded and the Suit was decreed by an ex-parte judgment by the Court of Assistant Collector so far it relates to the petitioner, the judgment rendered on 02.03.2015, it would be an ex parte against the petitioner for the reason that though admittedly the right stood created in their favour by the said sale deed dated 23.07.2002, on the basis of which they stood recorded in the revenue records, but despite of the fact that their purchase and the vesting of the rights was in the knowledge oft the plaintiff/respondent, but they were not made as a party though the decree dated 02.03.2015 was materially affecting their right, which was created in their favour by the sale deed.

6. Since the petitioner was not the party to the proceedings under Section 229B, he could not have invoked the provisions containe