Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Tyagi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Gupta, Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner, Deep Chand executed a sale deed in relation to Plot No. 521 on 8th October, 1985. The submission of the petitioner in paragraph -5 of the writ petition is that the sale deed is void as it was in relation to a fragment of a land as defined under section of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Accordingly, the mutation was not carried out. Ratan Lal, the father of respondent No. 4, Mahesh Chand, filed an application and an order was passed on 9th July, 1987 holding that the provisions of section would not be attracted and there was no violation of section . The notice that had been issued was accordingly dropped. The petitioner, who is the vendor, filed an application before the Additional Collector stating therein that the order had been obtained by the respondent No. 4 without bringing correct facts to the notice of the authority and that the respondent No. 4 has erroneously got his name recorded, hence the order dated 9th July, 1987 be recalled and set aside.
(3.) THE application moved by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 9th July, 1987 was rejected on the ground of limitation as it had been filed eight years, eight months and sixteen days and no satisfactory explanation had been given in this regard. It was also recorded that the order dated 9th July, 1987 had been passed after giving opportunity to the parties. This order dated 27th May, 1998 was assailed before the Additional Commissioner, who also rejected the same on 11th August, 1999. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed as not maintainable being a second revision, hence this petition.;