VIBHAGUDDI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R.C. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Agarwal as well as Ms. Rupal Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner, namely, Late Hari Lal was recorded as tenure-holder of Khata No. 8, Plot No. 311 area 0.120 Hectare, Plot No. 314 area 0.0510 Hectare 372Ka area 0.510 Hectare, 318/706 area 0.130 Hectare, Khata No. 9, Plot No. 313 area 4.6920 Hectare and Khata No.10, Plot No. 374 area 0.9480 Hectare, situated at Village- Kherli Hafizpur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Buddha Nagar. Petitioner?s father was not satisfied with his son, namely, Yogesh and his family members, hence he was residing with the petitioner who is daughter. Accordingly, petitioner's father, Hari Lal executed an unregistered Will-deed dtd. 10/12/1990 in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner?s father, Hari Lal has died on 11/3/1992. Petitioner filed an application for mutation on 8/11/2016 that is about after 24 years in which respondent No. 3 filed an objection that she is owner of the land in dispute being legal heir of the Late Hari Lal. Tehsildar, allowed the petitioner?s application for mutation vide order dtd. 5/11/2019. Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed by Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dtd. 24/12/2020 and matter has been remanded back before the trial Court for fresh decision. Against the order dtd. 24/12/2020 passed by respondent No. 2, petitioner has filed a revision before the respondent No. 1, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 14/12/2022 upholding the remand order dtd. 24/12/2020, hence this writ petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has applied for mutation on the basis of unregistered Will-deed dtd. 10/12/1990 executed by Late Hari Lal in favour of the petitioner, as such, the mutation application was rightly allowed by the Tehsildar. He further submitted that the Will-deed dtd. 10/12/1990 was also proved before the Tehsildar according to the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Indian Evidence Act but without considering the aforementioned aspect of the case, the appeal has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back for fresh decision of the mutation case which is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the appeal, as such, the same was challenged in revision before the Board of Revenue but Board of Revenue has arbitrarily dismissed the revision.