- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the Petitioner came to know that on the basis of sale-deed executed by Sadhana Sahakari Samiti, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 got their names mutated in the revenue record through an ex-parte order dated 9.12.1996, they moved an application for recall of the ex-parte order dated 9.12.1996 as well as order dated 8.11.2000. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.1.2006. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred a Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2006. Thereafter aforesaid Respondents filed a revision, which was also allowed vide order dated 26.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed.
(3.) Counsel for the contesting Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable since it relates to mutation proceedings.;