KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IN view of peculiar facts and cir­cumstances of the case and with the con­sent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with­out calling for a counter affidavit. Proceeding under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by the re­spondent No. 3 for mutation of his name on the basis of an alleged Will dated 16.8.2004 said to have been executed by the recorded tenure-holder Smt. Padam Kumari the pe­titioner No. 2 herein. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Padam Kumari is alive and has wrongly been shown to be dead and the alleged Will deed is forged, fictitious and fabricated. Tehsildar after considering the entire evidence and materials brought on record came to the finding that Smt. Padam Kumari is alive and the will deed on the basis of which mutation was being sought by the respondent No. 3 was forged and fictitious, dismissed the proceedings. Re­spondent No. 3 filed a revision against the said order. It is alleged by the petitioner that the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed within 15 days by means of an ex-parte order without any notice and op­portunity of hearing to the petitioners.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner goes to show that even though he has remanded the case back to the Tehsildar but a direction has been is­sued that the witnesses of the Will deed may be examined and thereafter, the order of mutation may be passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order. In the meantime, an order of the Board of Revenue was produced before the Com­missioner rejecting the revision and con­firming the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner on the basis of which the recall application was dismissed by the Commissioner.;