(1.) The Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the array of the parties. Heard Sri S.K. Mishra for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kushwaha for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, UP at Lucknow dated 14.5.2015 by which the revision has been allowed and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 22.12.2014 has been set aside.
(2.) During pendency of mutation application Mewa Lal, predecessor of the petitioner, was died in the year 2006. Therefore the contesting respondents moved an application for substituting the heirs of Mewa Lal which was allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 4.7.2012. In spite of the order dated 4.7.2012 heirs of Mewa Lal were not actually substituted in the mutation application. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application dated 13.8.2012 for dismissing the mutation application as abated for not making necessary amendment in the array of the parties in pursuance of the order dated 4.7.2012. The trial Court heard the application and by order dated 16.8.2012 permitted the contesting respondents to incorporate the names of heirs of Mewa Lal in the mutation application. The order dated 16.8.2012 was challenged in the appeal which was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 23.11.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 22.12.2014 and the orders dated 16.8.2012 and 23.11.2013 were set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar to decide the substitution application as well as issue relating to abatement, afresh. The aforesaid order was challenged by the contesting respondents before the Board of Revenue, UP at Lucknow which has been allowed by order dated 14.5.2015 and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 22.12.2014 was set aside. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties.