KISHUN SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Dinesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 8.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of unregistered Will deed dtd. 3/7/1973 name of Mst. Bilasi recorded tenure holder was expunged and the name of Hari Nath, father of private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 was ordered to be recorded by the Additional Tahsildar on 3/5/1995 in the proceeding under Sec. 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Against the order passed by the Tahsildar dtd. 3/5/1995, restoration application dtd. 19/5/2005 / 7/5/2005 were filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay of 10 years on behalf of the petitioner's mother, Smt. Phekana and one Nand Lal son of Kunmun, which were rejected by Tahsildar vide order dtd. 8/12/2008 on the ground of limitation. Against the order dtd. 8/12/2008, petitioner's mother filed a Revision No. 233 of 2015 on 29/1/2015. One Nand Lal (father of respondent Nos. 9 and 10) has also challenged the order dtd. 8/12/2008 through Revision No. 142 of 2008. Revisional Court vide order dtd. 28/7/2023 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner's mother on the ground of limitation, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order of the revisional Court dtd. 28/7/2023 only.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation order was passed by the Additional Tahsildar in arbitrary manner without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that unregistered Will-deed relied upon by the Will holder is forged and fictitious document, as such, the mutation order cannot be passed on the basis of alleged unregistered Will-deed dtd. 3/7/1973. He next submitted that the restoration application and the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner's mother have been also dismissed on technical grounds, as such, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the revisional Court to decide the revision afresh on merit.