MAIYADEEN Vs. BALDAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition challenge is made to orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed on 14/10/2025 and 30/6/2025 by the Additional Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar and SDO, Luvkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur thereby the appeal of the respondents against mutation entry of the year 2006-07 has been allowed and second appeal against that order has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner.

(2.) It is the case of petitioners that the deceased Gokul Yadav had three sons, one of which was the petitioner Maiyadeen and two other brothers were Badda and Thovan. It is the case of the petitioner that in the lifetime of other two brothers, the name of present petitioner was very much there in the revenue records along with his other two brothers and after death of Thovan who died issueless, mutation took place in the year 2006-07 and the delay of 18 years was condoned in casual manner and further that the SDO has casually held that the present petitioner was not the son of Gokul Yadav but was son of one Arjun Yadav.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not heard because even the notices were issued to the petitioner naming his father as Arjun Yadav which led to the notices not being actually served upon the petitioner and also that the that the SDO could not have carried out enquiry as to paternity, which requires complicated evidence as it goes into the title of the person to succeed the property.