Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE dispute in the instant writ petitions revolves around the plot No. 120 area 52 dismal and plot No. 23 area 68 dismal situated in Village Jangal Shalik Ram Patima Bye -pass Road, P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur. The said land was recorded in the name of late Bharath, who is the father of the Petitioner. It is said that Smt. Naumi Mathews, the Petitioner was looking after the affairs of her father and being pleased with the help and assistance rendered by the daughter, he executed a Will Deed on 18.7.1977 in favour of the Petitioner, who later an filed an application under section 34 of Land Revenue Act for recording her name over the plot No. 23 area 68 dismal. The Tahsildar vide order dated 31.10.1987 allowed the application and directed for recording her name in the revenue records. When the sons of late Bharath, namely, George Bharath and Pritam Bharath, came to know the aforesaid fact, they moved an application 11.12.2001 before the Tehsildar to recall the order dated 31.10.1987. This application was allowed by the Tahsildar and vide order dated 30.4.2003, recalled his earlier dated 31.10.1987. Thereafter, according to the Petitioner, a compromise application was filed by George Bharath, Pritam Bharath and the Petitioner stating therein the name of the Petitioner may be recorded over plot No. 23, whereas name of George Bharath and Pritam Bharath over plot No. 120. The Tahsildar accepted the compromise application dated 28.7.2003 and passed an order 10.9.2003 for recording the names as averred above. Again the dispute arose between the parties as one Prem Nath Bharath filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 10.9.2003. The Tahsildar after considering the entire record and statement of Prem Nath Bharath dismissed the restoration application on 26.3.2008 holding that no explanation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act has been given.
(3.) IT may be noted that the aforesaid Prem Nath Bharath died on 28.3.2008 leaving behind his son Maiksual Bharath (Respondent No. 5), who filed a revision against the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Tahsildar. The Additional District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.8.2009, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of Land Revenue Act. The Revision was also dismissed.;