SOMATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the Petitioner came to know that on the basis of sale-deed executed by Sadhana Sahakari Samiti, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 got their names mutated in the revenue record through an ex parte order dated 9.12.1996, they moved an application for recall of the ex parte order dated 9.12.1996 as well as order dated 8.11.2000. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.1.2006. Respondent No. 5 and 6 preferred a Appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2006. Thereafter aforesaid Respondents filed a revision, which was also allowed vide order dated 26.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the contesting Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable since it relates to mutation proceedings.

(3.) Under these circumstances, the primary question to be decided is as to whether the writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act is maintainable or not.