HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 6608 of 2019 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Amardeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for private-respondents. 2. In view of recent orders passed in this matter, the petition has been finally heard. 3. The petitioner was one of the seven defendants in a suit filed under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. Out of the seven defendants, five were private parties, i.e. real brothers and defendants no. 6 and 7 were respectively Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. The suit was filed by the private respondents No. 5 and 6 based upon the plea that during consolidation operations, four real brothers of the plaintiffs' father had settled their property through family settlement, according to which, certain properties fell in the shares of some of the defendants and a decree was claimed that plaintiffs be declared as Bhumidhars of the property covered by Arazi No. 316. 4. The suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 11.11.1991 by recording a finding that no family settlement was brought on record with a further finding that defendants no. 1 and 3 had appeared and supported the plaintiffs' claim. 5. A review application was filed by the plaintiff-respondents, which was allowed by the same officer on 30.08.1992 observing that since some of the defendants had supported the plaintiffs' cause, the suit should be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amardeo Singh, Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Upadhyay, C.S.C., Rajshekhar Srivastava Khinni Lal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 13 Others .....Respondent(s) decreed. 6. After 14 years, a recall application was filed by the petitioner stating that he came to know about the order dated 30.08.1992 in 2006. The said application was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, against which a revision was filed, which has also been dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time either at the first stage when the suit was dismissed or second time when the review was allowed, any notice was issued to the petitioner, who was defendant no. 5. It is further submitted that once a finding was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer while dismissing the suit that no family settlement was brought on record, the same finding could not be ignored/reversed, directly or indirectly, in review by observing that since some of the defendants had accepted the claim of the plaintiffs, the suit should be decreed and, therefore, the very order allowing the review application is unsustainable and consequential orders are also bad in law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for private respondents submits that family settlement took place long ago between the family members and except the respondents, all other persons got the properties in different villages. It is further submitted that when restoration application came up for consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer, he noted the consensus made by all the parties in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and, therefore, no interference is warranted in this case. 9. I have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 10. The very first order dated 11.11.1991 indicates that no issue was framed by the Sub Divisional Officer and despite the fact that non-filing of objections by the defendants was noted, the suit was dismissed. A finding was recorded that no family settlement was brought on record by the plaintiffs. 11. The said order could be assailed in appeal, however, the same was sought to be reviewed/reversed by way of a review application at the instance of the plaintiffs. A perusal of the order dated 30.08.1992 indicates that there is no indication of issuance of notice to the opposite parties in the review application and the petitioner was one of them. WRIC No. 6608 of 2019 2 12. Surprisingly, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the review application ignoring the fact that the very plea based upon the family settlement was denied by him while dismissing the suit. It has also been observed that family settlement was alleged to be an oral family settlement, although in the plaint, it was stated that during consolidation operations some family settlement had taken place. 13. The Court is not sure about the fact as to whether some oral understanding had taken place between the parties or any written family settlement was filed in any court, however, the very fact that in the year 2018, the name of the petitioner was expunged from the revenue records based upon the decree drawn by the Sub Divisional Officer in review, this itself shows that the decree was kept by the respondents with them and they did not seek its implementation at least through mutation proceedings. 14. Be that as it may, if in 2006 the petitioner came up with a plea that he had no knowledge of allowing the review application, the plea raised by the petitioner that things were surreptitiously finalized merely based upon oral statements of some of the defendants, who were won over by the plaintiffs, appears to have force. 15. The Court is not in a position as on today as to the sanctity of any family settlement and as to who were the parties thereto if at all it was written down or what actually happened in consolidation operations. However, at least this much is clear from the record that review application itself was not maintainable and/or if maintainable, the same could be dealt with in accordance with law but only after putting the petitioner to notice in whose favour a decree of dismissal of suit by the same Sub Divisional Officer based upon the findings contrary to the order allowing review, did exist. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the very nature of the operative portion of the order allowing review, this Court is of the view that the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 should be revived. 17. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. 18. The order dated 30.08.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer WRIC No. 6608 of 2019 3 allowing the review application, along with all consequential orders/decree passed pursuant thereto are hereby set aside. 19. Although, effect of setting aside of the order dated 30.08.1992 would be that dismissal of suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 by order dated 11.11.1991 would remain intact, however, since even that order was passed in a clandestine manner and the same is before the court, it also cannot be ignored in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the order passed on review application has been set aside, the Court deems it appropriate to revive the suit proceedings by setting aside the order dated 11.11.1991 also as the same would be covered by "any other order", falling under relief (c) claimed in the writ petition. 20. Accordingly, the suit under Section 220-B of the Act stands revived to its original number and status. 21. The Sub-Divisional Officer concerned shall issue notice to all the concerned parties by all possible legal means and after ensuring service of notice upon them, he shall proceed with the suit de novo in accordance with law. 22. It is made clear that since mutation entries have already been effected pursuant to the orders impugned, which were passed long ago and the same were not even stayed by this Court in this writ petition, status quo with respect to nature and possession of the property as well as record of rights shall be maintained till disposal of the suit. 23. The suit shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned very expeditiously by fixing dates on weekly basis and within a period of one year from the date of its revival on record. September 23, 2026 Sazia WRIC No. 6608 of 2019 4 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad