VINAY KUMAR DUBEY Vs. JALESAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE responds for the petitioner. However, Mr. Gopal Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is present. He submits that when the case was called yesterday, even in the revised list, none responds for the petitioner and as such, counsel for the opposite party No.1 was directed to inform the petitioner's counsel in writing. When the case was taken-up today in the revised list, none responds for the petitioner, but the notice which has been served upon the petitioner is taken on record. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2002 assailing the order passed by the Board of Revenue in a reference at the instance of the petitioner. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on 20.2.1984, Sri Balesar Dubey executed 'Will' in favour of Vinay Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Ajay Kumar. On 3.3.1985, Balesar died and the petitioner came in possession of the said property. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records on 30.7.1990. As the order passed by the Naib- Tahsildar was ex parte order, the opposite party No.1, on coming to know the aforesaid order, moved an application for recall of the order, which was dismissed by the Naib-Tahsildar on 27.8.1990 and as such, an appeal has been filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was allowed on 25.11.1991 holding therein that the Will Deed, on the basis of which the name of the petitioner has been entered into the revenue records, has not been proved. The said finding is being assailed by the petitioner by preferring a revision and the matter was referred for reference. A specific finding has been recorded by the Board of Revenue while deciding the reference that the title of the property in question is being disputed and as such, it cannot be decided in reference and the matter was remanded to the authority for deciding the matter afresh. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.