Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gulrez Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29.7.2008 and 4.4.2013 passed by the Tehsildar Naraini, District Banda in Case No. 448 of 2008 (Shakur Ahmad v. Sabbir Ahmad) and order dated 29.4.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Chitrakoot Dham, Division Banda in Revision No. 181/98 of 2013 -14 (Shakur Ahmad v. Abdul Wadud and others).
(2.) VIDE order dated 29.7.2008, an application filed by the petitioner seeking mutation of his name on the basis of registered Will -deed executed by his father late Sabbir was allowed. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 4.4.2013, the restoration application filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed and vide order dated 29.4.2014, revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.4.2013 has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to this case are that on the basis of registered Will executed by late Sabbir (the father of the petitioner), the petitioner has filed an application under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutating his name over the land in dispute. The publication was allowed. It is recorded in the judgment that inspite of due service, no objection was filed. The petitioner has proved his Will by getting examined two marginal witnesses namely Sri Ramdeen son of Sri Raja Ram and Kallu Prasad son of Jaggannath. The petition r himself got examined and thereafter the respondent No. 2 has passed an order for recording the petitioner's name over the land in dispute. On 7.2.2009, the respondent No. 3 had filed a restoration application on the ground that he is the real brother of the petitioner and his brother had obtained the order dated 29.7.2008 without there being any valid service of notice upon him. The petitioner, herein, had filed an objection to the averments made in restoration application on 19.1.2013. The restoration application was barred by time but after due deliberations, the delay has been condoned and the restoration application was allowed and the order dated 29.7.2008 was recalled. Prior to that, on 7.2.2009, on an application filed by the respondent No. 3, seeking interim order, the Court concerned had passed an order for maintaining status qua.
(3.) SRI Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the mutation order was passed after due publication and after due service of the notice but no objection was filed. Further he has also proved his Will by getting examined two marginal witnesses and the petitioner himself, thereafter the order of mutation was passed.;