RAHUL @ RAHUL YADAV Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of private respondent No. 4 on caveat.

(2.) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dtd. 29/8/2024 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected affirming the order passed in revision (1521/20122013) decided on 5/10/2018. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a review against the order dtd. 29/8/2024 which has also been dismissed by means of the order dtd. 6/1/2025 and being aggrieved against the said orders, the instant petition has been preferred.

(3.) Briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter. The disputed property in question belongs one Sri Shanti Prasad who initially had willed his property in favour of the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 namely Beena Devi and Rekha Devi. Subsequently, another Will was executed by Shanti Prasad in favour of Manorma Devi conferring a life estate on her and further provided that the vested remainder would be Anand Kumari, who is the private respondent No. 4 herein.