- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) Although this writ petition arises out of the orders passed in the mutation proceedings, the facts as mentioned in the pleadings on record are so glaring that this Court feels justified to show interference in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, by which without condoning the delay, the recall application filed by the contesting respondent no.3 had been allowed and the earlier order issued by the Tehsildar concerned regarding mutation of the name of the petitioner on the property in question had been stayed. The Revisional Court declined to entertain the Revision by making observation that the Revision was filed with a delay and that it was against the interlocutory order. Yet from the perusal of the order of the Revisional Court, it appears that the Revisional Court has also mentioned on the merits of the case which it could not have done after saying that the Revision was not maintainable. Moreover, while observing on the merits of the case, the Revisional Court also found that the Tehsildar in question had violated several circulars issued by the Board of Revenue that no orders be passed by the Revenue Courts except on bar coded order sheet.;