NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ravindra Mishra for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 22.1.2004 and the subsequent order by which the application for mutation filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in default of the petitioner and the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the SDO dismissing the appeal of the petitioners and the order dated 24.2.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

(2.) ON the basis of a will dated 9.4.2001 executed by Bhupendra Singh, the petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names over the land in dispute. It is alleged that proclamation was issued, but no objection was filed by any one. The Naib Tahsildar has recorded the statement of attesting witness of the will and passed order dated 25.7.2001 directing for mutation of the name of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Thereafter, an application has been filed by Brijesh Devi @ Brijesh Kumari (respondent -2) which was registered as a separate case. However, on this application, the order dated 25.7.2001 has been recalled by Naib Tahsildar and the date has been fixed for hearing of the mutation application of the petitioners. Under a wrong legal advice, the order dated 22.1.2004 has been challenged in Appeal No. 34 before the SDO, Aligarh, which was dismissed by order dated 25.4.2005. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the order dated 24.2.2014. As in the meantime, no one was attending the case, as such, the Naib Tahsildar has dismissed the application of the petitioners also by a subsequent order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of Counsel for the petitioners and examined the record.