Kuldeep Singh And Another vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 19.

2. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

3. According to the petitioner the dispute pertains to partition of the property i.e. Gata No. 367 along with gata no. 243, 355, 356, 357, 360, 365, 366, 382, 411, 412, which were initially recorded in the name of Munshi Lal and Munna Lal, both of whom are sons of Deen Dayal and Munna Lal is the father of the appellants. After the death of Munna Lal, the name of his daughter Kamla Devi @ Guddi has been recorded in the revenue records along with Munna Lal who is the father of the appellant, as such it is stated that Kamla Devi and Munna Lal have half share each in the disputed property.

4. It has further been stated that Balkar Singh and Dilbagh Singh respondents no. 6 and 7 had moved suit under Section 176 of the U.p. Z.A. & L.R. Act for partition, on the ground that in Khata No. 35 they have half share and in Khata No. 34 they have 1/4th share in the said property.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the matter was decided in the court 2 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 of the S.D.M. Maholi, Sitapur and a preliminary decree was prepared on the basis of Khurra report submitted before him and subsequently as no objections were filed, the final decree was prepared on 4.7.2005.

6. A perusal of both the orders would indicate that the said order has been passed on the behest of the appellant/ petitioner and the private respondents did not participate in the said proceedings.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an application for recall was filed by the private respondents, stating that the order is an exparte order, which has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. The application for recall was rejected on the ground of delay.

8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Lucknow. In the appeal the appellant has assailed the order of preliminary decree dated 9.12.2003, final decree 4.7.2005 as well as the order dated 15.01.2010 and order dated 18.06.2014, by which the recall application has been rejected. The appellate court while allowing the appeal noticed that after filing of suit for partition notices were issued but no objections were filed by the appellant and as no objection was filed, preliminary decree was confirmed and final decree was passed on 4.7.2005. In paragraph 6 of his order he has stated that even if Khurra report has been submitted the Court ought to have looked into while passing the final decree. No reasons or any consideration have been made indicating application of mind and merely relying upon the report of Regional Lekhpal the final decree has been passed. He has further recorded that without inviting any objection the preliminary decree has been confirmed and the entire proceedings have been conducted exparte and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the appellant therein and therefore the order impugned was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The matter was remanded to the trial court for determination afresh, after hearing all the parties, in accordance with law.

9. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.8.2023 the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also 3 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and found that without inviting any objection or even dealing the report of the Regional Lekhpal the said report has been confirmed and the entire proceedings have been conducted exparte and therefore, he did not find any reason to interfere in the order of the appellate court and accordingly rejected the revision.

10. It has further been stated that against the revisional order dated

29.8.2025, the present petition has been filed. The petitioner has challenged already the revisional order dated 29.8.2025. From the perusal of the entire material on record there is no doubt that the private respondents did not appear before the trial court and no objections were either filed or considered by the trial court.

11. Further I do not find that notices were adequately served upon the private respondents or they have participated in any of the proceedings. Undoubtedly the substantial rights of the parties are effected in the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act with regard to the partition and therefore the trial court should ensure participation of the parties before passing the final order. The appellate court as well as revisional court have concurrently returned the finding that proceedings were conducted exparte and therefore remanded the matter back to the trial court for adjudication the matter afresh. This Court in writ proceedings looking into the validity of the order passed by the appellate and revisional court to see infirmity requiring interference.

12. From the perusal of the record I do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court or by the appellate court are infirm to the extent that no opportunity of hearing was given while deciding the suit of the petitioner under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

13. I further find that the petitioner would have adequate opportunity of hearing before the trial court in remand proceedings and to that extent I do not find that the right petitioner was prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Much time has elapsed since passing of the final decree and to that extent while dismissing the present writ petition, I direct the trial court to proceed and decide the issue afresh, with expedition to say within a period of one year, from the date a certified copy of this order is 4 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 produced, in accordance with law.

14. Subject to the aforesaid direction the writ petition is dismissed. November 7, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 19.

2. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

3. According to the petitioner the dispute pertains to partition of the property i.e. Gata No. 367 along with gata no. 243, 355, 356, 357, 360, 365, 366, 382, 411, 412, which were initially recorded in the name of Munshi Lal and Munna Lal, both of whom are sons of Deen Dayal and Munna Lal is the father of the appellants. After the death of Munna Lal, the name of his daughter Kamla Devi @ Guddi has been recorded in the revenue records along with Munna Lal who is the father of the appellant, as such it is stated that Kamla Devi and Munna Lal have half share each in the disputed property.

4. It has further been stated that Balkar Singh and Dilbagh Singh respondents no. 6 and 7 had moved suit under Section 176 of the U.p. Z.A. & L.R. Act for partition, on the ground that in Khata No. 35 they have half share and in Khata No. 34 they have 1/4th share in the said property.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the matter was decided in the court 2 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 of the S.D.M. Maholi, Sitapur and a preliminary decree was prepared on the basis of Khurra report submitted before him and subsequently as no objections were filed, the final decree was prepared on 4.7.2005.

6. A perusal of both the orders would indicate that the said order has been passed on the behest of the appellant/ petitioner and the private respondents did not participate in the said proceedings.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an application for recall was filed by the private respondents, stating that the order is an exparte order, which has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. The application for recall was rejected on the ground of delay.

8. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Lucknow. In the appeal the appellant has assailed the order of preliminary decree dated 9.12.2003, final decree 4.7.2005 as well as the order dated 15.01.2010 and order dated 18.06.2014, by which the recall application has been rejected. The appellate court while allowing the appeal noticed that after filing of suit for partition notices were issued but no objections were filed by the appellant and as no objection was filed, preliminary decree was confirmed and final decree was passed on 4.7.2005. In paragraph 6 of his order he has stated that even if Khurra report has been submitted the Court ought to have looked into while passing the final decree. No reasons or any consideration have been made indicating application of mind and merely relying upon the report of Regional Lekhpal the final decree has been passed. He has further recorded that without inviting any objection the preliminary decree has been confirmed and the entire proceedings have been conducted exparte and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the appellant therein and therefore the order impugned was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The matter was remanded to the trial court for determination afresh, after hearing all the parties, in accordance with law.

9. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.8.2023 the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also 3 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and found that without inviting any objection or even dealing the report of the Regional Lekhpal the said report has been confirmed and the entire proceedings have been conducted exparte and therefore, he did not find any reason to interfere in the order of the appellate court and accordingly rejected the revision.

10. It has further been stated that against the revisional order dated

29.8.2025, the present petition has been filed. The petitioner has challenged already the revisional order dated 29.8.2025. From the perusal of the entire material on record there is no doubt that the private respondents did not appear before the trial court and no objections were either filed or considered by the trial court.

11. Further I do not find that notices were adequately served upon the private respondents or they have participated in any of the proceedings. Undoubtedly the substantial rights of the parties are effected in the proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act with regard to the partition and therefore the trial court should ensure participation of the parties before passing the final order. The appellate court as well as revisional court have concurrently returned the finding that proceedings were conducted exparte and therefore remanded the matter back to the trial court for adjudication the matter afresh. This Court in writ proceedings looking into the validity of the order passed by the appellate and revisional court to see infirmity requiring interference.

12. From the perusal of the record I do not find that the findings recorded by the trial court or by the appellate court are infirm to the extent that no opportunity of hearing was given while deciding the suit of the petitioner under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.

13. I further find that the petitioner would have adequate opportunity of hearing before the trial court in remand proceedings and to that extent I do not find that the right petitioner was prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. Much time has elapsed since passing of the final decree and to that extent while dismissing the present writ petition, I direct the trial court to proceed and decide the issue afresh, with expedition to say within a period of one year, from the date a certified copy of this order is 4 WRIB No. 1061 of 2025 produced, in accordance with law.

14. Subject to the aforesaid direction the writ petition is dismissed. November 7, 2025 Muk (Alok Mathur,J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench