KULDEEP SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 19.

(2.) In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with.

(3.) According to the petitioner the dispute pertains to partition of the property i.e. Gata No. 367 along with gata Nos. 243, 355, 356, 357, 360, 365, 366, 382, 411 and 412, which were initially recorded in the name of Munshi Lal and Munna Lal, both of whom are sons of Deen Dayal and Munna Lal is the father of the appellants. After the death of Munna Lal, the name of his daughter Kamla Devi @ Guddi has been recorded in the revenue records along with Munna Lal who is the father of the appellant, as such it is stated that Kamla Devi and Munna Lal have half share each in the disputed property.