S.C.Chaurasia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned orders dated 02.05.2010 & 09.07.2010 passed by opposite party no.1, contained as Annexure Nos. 3 & 5 to the writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners nos. 1 to 3 are nephews and the petitioner no.4 is the brother of Tribhuwan Dutt, who has expired on 28.09.1988. His contention is that the deceased Tribhuwan Dutt left behind him the married daughter, namely Smt. Gyanmati and the alleged Will dated 17.09.1987 executed by the deceased in her favour was not duly proved, but, in-spite of it, the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer allowed her application for mutation on the basis of said Will deed. His contention is that the said orders have been rightly quashed by the Additional Commissioner and the name of the petitioners have been ordered to be mutated, as the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. His contention is that Board of Revenue has committed illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda as well as in rejecting the review application and hence, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue deserve to be quashed. He has further submitted that since the Will deed has not been duly proved the petitioners are entitled to inherit the property of the deceased.;