- (1.) Heard Sri K. Ajit for the petitioner.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 28.04.2011 passed by Tehsildar, Bilaspur, district Rampur, 25.10.2012 passed by Deputy Collector, Bilaspur, district Rampur and 20.11.2012 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) Km. Manjit Kaur (respondent-6) moved an application (registered as Case No. 92 of 2010-11) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutating her name over the land transferred to her through sale deed dated 25.11.2010 (registered on 11.02.2011) executed by Satnam Singh (respondent-5). Smt. Harman Kaur (the petitioner) also moved an application (registered as Case No. 200 of 2010-11) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutating her name over the same land on the basis of sale deed dated 29.12.2010 executed by Satnam Singh (respondent-5). The mutation applications were contested by the petitioner and respondent-6 each other. Respondent-6 claimed that Satnam Singh had executed a sale deed dated 25.11.2010 in her favour, which was registered on 11.02.2011 as such in view of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, on registration, the sale deed would operate from 25.11.2010 and her name was liable to be mutated. The petitioner took the plea that sale deed dated 29.12.2010 was registered on the same day as such her sale deed was completed on 29.12.2010. Satnam Singh having transferred his right and title over the land in dispute, the sale deed dated 25.11.2010 could not have been registered on 11.02.2011. As such the name of the petitioner was liable to be mutated over the land in dispute. Both the applications were consolidated by Tehsildar, Bilaspur by order dated 18.4.2011.;