GEETA KESARWANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Yadav, the counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted Case No. 4409 of 2015 under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') for mutation of her name in the revenue records by virtue of a sale deed dated 7.10.1989 executed by Yadunaath Singh, the recorded tenure holder of the disputed plots. Sri Ramnaresh Singh the son of Yadunaath, i.e., the alleged vendor filed his objections and opposed the application filed by the petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar vide his order dated 2.4.2018 dismissed Case No. 4409 of 2015. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 04512 of 2018 against the order dated 2.4.2018 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy District Magistrate vide his order dated 11.5.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision No. 1141 of 2018 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, i.e., respondent no. 2 and the Board vide its order dated 31.1.2019 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and directed the Naib Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in the revenue records in accordance with the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the recall application registering Case No. REC/929/2019 was not maintainable as the revision against the order dated 25.2.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar was already pending before the Additional Commissioner and a review application had been filed by the other opposite parties before the Board of Revenue for review of the order dated 31.1.2019. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction and liable to be set-aside.