Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.K. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent No. 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent No. 1 and 2. No counter affidavit has been filed despite the matter pending since 2004.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 2.4.2002 passed by the Terhsildar and the revisional order thereto dated 12.12.2004, passed by the Board of Revenue. By the aforesaid order dated 2.4.2002 the Tehsildar has recalled its earlier order dated 4.8.1998, passed in Mutation Case No. 343/344/345/98 directing for recording the names of the petitioners as per the decree passed in a partition suit No. 54/1999 -99. The aforesaid order has been upheld in revision. It appears that the petitioner had instituted a suit under section 176 of UP ZA & LR Act for partition. The said suit was decreed and a final decree was prepared on 21.6.99, whereby the Kuras made by the Lekhpal were accepted. On the basis of the said decree by the order dated 4.8.1998, the Tehsildar directed for entering the names in the revenue records of the petitioner.
(3.) ON behalf of the Gaon Sabha an application was filed on 19.1.2002 for recall of the mutation order only on the ground that the said has been obtained on the basis of family settlement so as to deceive the Bank. On the said application the order was recalled by the Tehsildar on 2.4.2002 and the same has been upheld in the revision.;