VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7 and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plot in dispute belonged to Ganpat, son of Hari Ram, resident of village Rudhauli, Tappa, Padhiya, Pargana Basti Purab, Tehsil and District Basti. Ganpat executed an unregistered will deed in favour of petitioners as well as Om Prakash son of Thakur on 19/2/1973. Ganpat expired on 4/3/1973. Petitioners are the heirs of deceased Ganpat, being the real cousins. Petitioners filed an application for mutation under Sec. 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on the basis of will deed executed on 19/2/1973. In the aforementioned mutation proceeding, Lalit Ram and Others have filed the objection on the basis of the registered gift deed, alleged to be executed on 8/5/1970 by Ganpat in their favour. Second objection was filed by Kashi Prasad and others and third set of objection was filed by Govind Saran, on the basis of agreement to sale executed by Ganpat in their favour and 4th set of objection was filed by Smt. Mathura, claiming herself to be the heir of deceased Ganpat. The evidences were adduced by the parties in the aforementioned mutation proceeding. The Tahsildar vide order dtd. 17/11/1975, allowed the mutation application filed by the petitioner, on the basis of the will deed and rejected the objection filed by the other set of opposite parties. Against the order of the Tahsildar dtd. 17/11/1975, Jeeva Ram and Others filed an appeal under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was heard by respondent no.3 and the same was allowed vide order dtd. 23/6/2015, setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dtd. 17/11/1975 as well as directed the authorities to record the name of Lalit Ram, Kamta Prasad, Raghvendra Prasad, Shailendra Prasad and Rupan, on the basis of the gift deed dtd. 8/5/1970, in the place of deceased Ganpat. Petitioners challenged the appellate order dtd. 23/6/2015 through revision No. - 2055 under Sec. 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue which was entertained and an interim protection was granted. The Board of Revenue finally heard the matter and vide order dtd. 24/7/2023 dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the orders dtd. 24/7/2023, passed by the respondent no.2 and 23/6/2015, passed by respondent no.3.

(3.) It is also material fact that against the appellate order dtd. 23/6/2015, Revision No.1685 of 2015 was also filed under Sec. 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Board of Revenue by one Om Prakash which was consolidated with Revision No.2055 of 2015 and both the revisions were dismissed vide common impugned order dtd. 24/7/2023. Om Prakash challenged the order dtd. 24/7/2023 passed in Revision No.1685 of 2015 as well as order dtd. 23/6/2015, passed by respondent no.3 in appeal through Writ B No.825/2023.