SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dtd. 3/10/2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kadipur in an appeal filed under Sec. 210/211 of the Land Revenue Act against an order dtd. 12/7/2001 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dostpur, Sultanpur in Case No. 724, under Sec. 34 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the recorded tenure holder Kamal Nayan had executed a Will in favour of the opposite party no. 5 and thereafter the opposite party no. 5 had executed a sale deed in favour of Chhote Lal - the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Chhote Lal and the opposite party no. 5 both filed separate application for mutation, which were clubbed together. One Hari Shyam, brother of Opposite party no. 5 had filed objections against the application disputing the Will and claiming ownership in respect of half share on the basis of succession.