V. Kumar, M. - (1.) This is a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, under his order dated 21-9-1971.
(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows : On the death of Chhedu son of Raghubir, Smt. Sura who claimed to be a sister of the deceased, applied for mutation of her name in place of deceased. Mewa Lal who claimed himself to be the father's father's son's son of the deceased, separately applied for mutation and also filed an objection against the mutation application filed by Smt. Sura. Both the mutation applications were consolidated and Mewa Lal was treated as objector. Mewa Lal contended that he and Fakiray both are entitled to half share each in the property left by the deceased Chhedu as it was in his name, being 'Karta' of the family. They also contended that Smt. Sura was not the real sister of the deceased. In the mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar, he held that Smt. Sura failed to prove her case and ordered mutation in favour of Mewa Lal and Fakiray. It is significant that the Tahsildar did not clearly record a finding that Smt. Sura was not the daughter of Raghubir, viz. the sister of the deceased. Against the order of the Tahsildar, Smt. Sura filed a revision u/s 218 of the U.P.L.R. Act before the Additional Commissioner who alter hearing both the parties, referred the case to the Board vide his. order dated 30-3-1966, recommending that the name of Smt. Sura be mutated in place of deceased and orders of Tahsildar be set aside. This reference was rejected by Board of Revenue, on 18-7-1970, on technical ground, that against the order of Tahsildar revision u/s 218 of the U. P. L. R. Act, lies to Collector and not to the Commissioner. Smt. Sura filed a fresh revision against the order of the Tahsildar with an application for condonation.of delay before the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki. The Deputy Coumissioner, Barabanki, has now recommended to the Board that the revision be allowed and orders of the Tahsildar be set aside and mutation be ordered in favour of Suit. Sura. As regards possession, the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, has stated that as land revenue receipts were produced by Smt. Sura, she must be in possession of the land in. dispute. Against this recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Mewa Lal and others have filed an objection.
(3.) Heard the learned counsels for the revisionists and the opposite party and perused papers.;