Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ansar Ahmad, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent No. 4. This writ petition is being decided finally without calling for a counter affidavit in view of the order passed on 19.1.2015 while reserving the judgment in this case. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below: - - "It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 in the writ petition is only a formal party inasmuch as he had set up a claim on the basis of an un -registered Will, which was discarded by the Courts below. These orders have never been challenged by him any further and, therefore, he has no interest in the writ petition as such. As far as respondent No. 6 is concerned, it has been stated that she has, in fact, supported the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition can be decided finally without issuing any notice to respondent No. 6, as also to respondent No. 5."
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of a mutation case under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the order dated 27.1.2014 passed in Revision No. 2006/LR/2011/12, the order dated 15.12.2014 passed on a review application filed by the petitioner and the order dated 20.4.2012 passed in Revision 91 of 2012.
(3.) THE facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties pertains to land of village Bilhati, Mauja Pipripur, Pargana Bharthana, District Etawah which admittedly belong to Durjan Singh who died on 9.8.2010. The petitioner claims on the basis of a Will dated 11.12.2003 said to have been executed by Durjan Singh in his favour. This will has been registered on 27.9.2010. It appears that on the death of Durjan Singh, the property in question was recorded in the name of his two wives on the basis of a PA -11 entry.;