GULAM MURSALEEN Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.D. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 to 10, Mr. Mahesh Narayan Mishra, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Mr. Siraj Hamad Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 13 and 14.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that dispute relate to succession of one Mahmudul Hasan who expired on 29/10/2017. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed an application under Ss. 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Sirathu, District Kaushambi for recording of their names on the basis of succession. Respondent No. 4/Naib-Tehsildar vide order dtd. 14/8/2018, allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and directed to record the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 along with Smt. Sarvat Ara, wife of Mahmudul Hasan (petitioner's father), expunging the name of Mahmudul Hasan from the plots of khata Nos. 191, 192, 189, 188, 176, 1270, 742, 663, 662, 661, 660, 659, 658, 657, 655, 656, 748, 612 and 769 situated in village Sirathu, Pargana Kada, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi. Against the order of Tehsildar dtd. 14/8/2018, petitioner filed an appeal before the S.D.O. which was registered as Appeal No. 60/2018. Respondent No. 3/S.D.O., vide order dtd. 29/10/2018 allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Tehsildar dtd. 14/8/2018 and remanded the matter back before the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case afresh. Against the order dtd. 29/10/2018, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a revision under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was registered as Revision No. 3298/2018 and the same was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 4/9/2019, setting aside the order of the S.D.O. dtd. 29/10/2018. Against the order dtd. 4/9/2019, petitioner filed a recall application before the Board of Revenue along with stay application. The Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 9/1/2020 rejected the recall application filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 14/Sakia Bano filed Writ B No. 2898/2019 before this Court against the revisional order dtd. 4/9/2019 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 5/12/2019 with observation that petitioner has a remedy to institute the appropriate proceeding for declaration of her right. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dtd. 9/1/2020, passed by the Board of Revenue, rejecting the Recall Application No. 2635/2019 filed against the order dtd. 4/9/2019.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 5/1/2021 entertained the matter and directed the respondents to file counter affidavit in the mater within a period of 3 weeks. In compliance of the order dtd. 5/1/2021, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 10. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.