RAMRAJ Vs. D D C BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sengar for Respondent No. 3.

(2.) In view of the submissions raised and further that the Respondent No. 3 does not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage and that the Respondent No. 4 happens to be the brother of Respondent No. 3 and is claiming rights only through the Respondent No. 3, it is not necessary to issue any notice at this stage to the said Respondent. Accordingly, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage without awaiting any further Affidavits on the basis of the record available and the submission so raised.

(3.) The dispute relates to the holding of Late Kapil Deo. The Respondent No. 3 -Gangia claiming herself to be the widow of Late Kapil Deo moved an application for mutation which was allowed on 17.1.1991. The Petitioner claims himself to be the son of Kapil Deo from his first wife Rajeshwari and who was living away from home in connection with his profession. Upon return, he moved an application on 11.12.2001 for getting his name recorded over the holding of Kapil Deo. In the said proceedings, it is alleged that a compromise took place between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 on 1.10.2002 as a result whereof an order came to be passed in that regard. The Petitioner, accordingly, got his name recorded in place of Late Kapil Deo.