SURSATA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the respondent no.9.

(2.) Respondent no.10 appears to be proforma respondent for the reason that no claim by him has been put forth for mutation of his name in place of deceased tenure holder-Ram Balak and as such notice need not be issued to him.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the original recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute was Ram Balak, who died on 24.06.2018. The petitioner-Sursata claiming herself to be the mother of the deceased tenure holder is seeking mutation of her name, whereas respondent no.9 appears to have moved some application under Sec. 33 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 seeking mutation of her name and it appears that the Revenue Inspector vide his order dated 18.08.2018 had ordered mutation of the name of respondent no.9 treating the case to be undisputed as envisaged under Sec. 33(2)(a) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.