RAMDAS OJHA Vs. RAMVILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 8/7/2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Review Case No.1692-1/2016 on the ground that the Board of Revenue has travelled beyond the scope of review and has reconsidered the case on merits and has wrongly reversed the findings recorded by it in its order dated 20/5/2016 passed in revision No.558-1/2016.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that after the death of one Ramnarayan, petitioner-Ramdas filed an application for mutation of his name on the basis of a Will. Accordingly, the Tahsildar by order dated 31/12/2014 accepted the contentions of the petitioner and mutated his name in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31/12/2014, the respondents no.1 and 2, namely, Ramvilas and Ramkishore filed an appeal before the Court of SDO, Bhind, which was dismissed by the SDO, Bhind by order dated 8/10/2015. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO, Bhind, it appears that the respondents no.1 and 2 filed a second appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena and the said appeal was allowed by order dated 11/2/2016 and the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the SDO were set aside and it was directed that the names of legal representatives of Ramvilas and Rajabeti be also recorded in the revenue records alongwith the petitioner-Ramdas. It appears that, being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and it appears that the Board of Revenue by order dated 20/5/2016 allowed the said revision and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside and the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the SDO were restored.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 20/5/2016, the respondents no.1 and 2 filed a review before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the order dated 20/5/2016 has been wrongly passed because the Will, which was executed in favour of petitioner, was substituted by the subsequent Will executed by Ramnarayan and, therefore, the subsequent Will would prevail over the previous Will.