HANSNATH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Khurshid Alam learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Chaubey learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2003 and 9.6.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Belthara Road, District Ballia and further prays for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to correct the entry in the revenue record by deleting the name of respondent No. 3 namely Mewa Lal and respondent No. 4 Mst. Ramawati.

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the petitioner's father namely Late Sri Munni Lal executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in violation of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act inasmuch as it was a fragmentation of the holding. He states that the sale deed being null and void did not confer right, title or interest on respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and therefore the mutation entry made in the revenue records on the basis of such a sale deed is clearly illegal and requires to be set aside more particularly because the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are attempting to evict the petitioner from the land in question.