(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record, at admission stage.
(2.) Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dtd. 2/3/2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent no. 2) and order dtd. 14/9/1983 passed by Naib Tehsildar in proceeding under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.
(3.) Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that the property in question belongs to one Lakhai. After the death of Lakhai, name of his wife Smt. Jhulari came to be recorded in the revenue record. After the death of Jhulari, dispute arose with respect to her succession. It appears that after her death, respondent no. 5 has filed an application for mutation under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. During pendency of mutation application name of the present petitioner is recorded in the revenue record through PA-II on 3/2/1983. The Naib Tehsildar has allowed the aforesaid application filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, vide its order dtd. 14/9/1983, issuing a direction to record the name of respondent no. 5 in the revenue record in place of Smt. Jhulari and quashed the order dtd. 3/2/1983. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who has allowed the appeal, vide order dtd. 30/10/1986, and quashed the order dtd. 14/9/1983. Having being aggrieved, respondent no. 5 has filed a revision, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (respondent no. 3), vide order dtd. 10/6/1987, and referred the matter before the Board of Revenue for accepting the reference. Initially Board of Revenue has accepted the reference and allowed the revision, vide order dtd. 26/10/2018, but subsequently aforesaid order was recalled, vide order dtd. 18/12/2018, on the recall application filed on behalf of petitioner and finally, vide order dtd. 2/3/2022, Board of Revenue has accepted the reference made by Commissioner to allow the revision and set aide the order dtd. 30/10/1986 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal.