- (1.) HEARD Shri Umesh Chandra Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow, Division Lucknow, the order dated 19.8.2013 passed by the Tehsildar, Mishrikh, Sitapur and the order dated 31.10.2006 whereby the order of the Tehsildar has been incorporated in the revenue record pertaining to Khata No. 327 expunging the order dated 21.2.1988 passed by the Revenue Inspector. 3. The fact of the case in brief as follows. Plot No. 341, area 0.717 hectare situated at village Dhakhiya Kala, Pargana Chandra, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur was recorded in the name of Gajodhar son of Kallu in the basic year Khatauni. On the death of Gajodhar, the name of Raghubar, stated to be the real brother of Gajodhar, was entered in the revenue record by way of PA -11 on 21.2.1988. On 20.9.1990 an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act was filed by Smt. Bitola before the Nayab Tehsildar, Mishrikh. The petitioners filed their objection to this application. The Nayab Tehsildar by his order dated 6.9.1991 rejected the mutation application on the ground that the applicant was an impostor and not the real widow of Gajodhar. Despite rejection of the mutation application, Smt. Bitola in collusion with the revenue authorities is alleged to have succeeded in getting her name incorporated with the revenue records by order dated 31.10.2006. Against the order dated 31.10.2006, petitioners filed a recall application along with an application for condonation of delay whereupon a report was called for directing the Registrar Kanoongo to submit his report regarding the mutation in Bahi Zild No. 2, Page No. 51, Serial No. 18 for the year 1414 Fasli as also the order dated 31.10.2006. The Registrar Kanoongo was required to verify the correctness of this order after examining the relevant case file. The Registrar Kanoongo duly submitted his report on 15.7.2013 stating that no such file could be traced out despite the best efforts made in that regard. It appears that reports were also called from the other revenue authorities who also submitted reports that the case file is not available. On the basis of the report aforesaid the Tehsildar passed an order on 19.8.2013 that the order dated 31.6.2006 has not been passed in any case nor any application pertaining to the case is available in the court, yet he rejected the recall application filed by the petitioners.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the recall application a revision was preferred before the opposite party no. 2, Additional Commissioner (Administration). The opposite party no. 2 by the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 has directed the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which order has been impugned in the writ petition.;