PREM BAI Vs. KELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17-8-2001 passed by the Board of Revenue and the judgment dated 5-1-1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and has prayed that the judgment passed by the Additional Divisional commissioner dated 17-9-96 be restored and it be directed that the mutation No. 254 inter alia in favour of the petitioner on 22-12-1992 by Tehsildar Sangodh was Just and proper.

(2.) IT is clalmed that the petitioner being the only daughter of Shri Mangi Lal, she continued to reside with him even after marriage in Village Dhulet of Tehsil Sangod. Shri mangi Lal was the khatedar tenant of the land of khasra No. 66. Since her father suddenly died on 20-12-92, after his death she being her only legal heir, the mutation was opened in her name by Tehsildar on 22-12-92. The respondent No. 1 filed appeal against such mutation stating that father of the petitioner Mangi Lal had executed a Will in his favour on 11-12-1992 and further that he was not given opportunity of hearing by entering the name of the petitioner. The SDO by order dated 5-1-94 remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar on the premise that since there was registered Will in favour of the respondent No. 1, he should be heard and matter should be decided afresh. Being aggrieved with the order dated 5-1-94 passed by the SDO, Ramganj Mandi, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Divisional commissioner, Kota who by his judgment dated 17-6-96 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the SDO, Ramganj mandi. The respondent No. 1 thereupon filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue asserting therein that the deceased mangi Lal has executed a Will in his favour and this aspect has not been appreciated by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 17-8-2001 allowed the appeal and restored the order of the SDO. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition with the prayers enumerated above.

(3.) I have heard Shri Vijay Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and shri B. P. Pareek, the learned counsel for the respondent.