KEWALA DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of opposite party No.3 and on the basis of that, he moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar concerned and the Tahsildar passed the order for mutation in favour of the opposite party No.3 and after that, the opposite party No.3 executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 moved an application for recall of the mutation order and the Tahsildar recalled the mutation order by means of the order dated 2.7.2001. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 2.7.2001, the petitioner filed Revision before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi Region on the ground that once the mutation order has been passed, then the recall application is not maintainable and when the sale deed is in existence, there is no occasion to recall his own order. The Additional Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, passed an order on 30.4.2007 and allowed the revision in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 filed revision before the Board of Revenue on the ground that he had not been heard before the Tahsildar. It is pertinent to mention here that the whole controversy arises out of the forged certificate of Class III. Regular Suit was also filed in the year 1996 by the opposite party No.2, which is pending disposal. The instant petition arises out of the proceedings which have been initiated by the opposite party No.2 on an application for recall of the mutation order which went upto the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar concerned for deciding the matter afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing. The Board of Revenue has not interfered either in the order of Additional Commissioner or in the order of Tahsildar. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 8.4.2009, whereby the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar concerned for passing appropriate orders, in accordance with, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the aggrieved persons. No interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.