RAHUL Vs. COLLECTOR, HARIDWAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ra-jendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By the present writ petition the I petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th May, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 30 of 2004-05, Rahul Vs. Balram and others, under section 219 of hand Revenue Act as well as a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 3 and 4 not to create third party interest on the property in dispute.

(3.) Briefly stated, grandfather of the petitioner late Sri Banvari has died leaving behind his three sons namely Vijay Pal, Ved Pal and Balram respondent No. 3. The uncle of the petitioner late Sri Ved Pal also I, died without any issue and the deceased has always treated the petitioner as his son. During his lifetime, the deceased Ved Pal executed a Will dated 16.1.2003 in respect of his movable and immovable property mentioned in registered Will. The petitioner after the death of his uncle Sri Ved Pal moved an application under section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act before the respondent No. 2 for the mutation of his name on the basis of Will dated 16th Jan., 2003 executed by late Shri Ved Pal. On 20.3.2003, the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded on the basis of the Will dated 16th Jan., 2003 in place of the deceased Ved Pal in Case No. 41 of 2003, Rahul Singh Vs. Ved Pal. Thus, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record.'