- (1.) Heard Sri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jakhaniya, Ghazipur in Appeal Nos. nil of 2012, nil of 2012 and nil of 2012 (Asha Devi v. Mali) and order dated 19.2.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (IInd), Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Revision Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2012 (Asha Devi v. Mali), vide order dated 27.9.2012, the appeals filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in case Nos. 305/73/282, 304/42/251 and 306/43/286 {Mali v. Purshottam), have been rejected as barred by time, whereas by the subsequent order dated 16.2.2015, the revisions filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.9.2012 have also been dismissed.
(2.) By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being taken up for final disposal.
(3.) The facts giving rise to this case are that with respect to the land situated in three different villages, the respondent No. 3 filed three different cases, i.e., case Nos. 305/73/282, 304/42/251 and 306/43/286 (Mali v. Purshottam), under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutating his name in the revenue record impleading the father of the petitioner on the basis of the registered will dated 5.4.2005. All the three cases were consolidated, as they were subject-matter of the same will, and ultimately, those cases were allowed with the direction to mutate the name of respondent No. 3 on the basis of the registered will deed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, three different appeals, i.e., appeal Nos. nil of 2012, nil of 2012 and nil of 2012 (Asha Devi v. Mali), were filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, which were barred by three months and 12 days. Alongwith the appeals, the petitioner had also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extending the period of limitation in filing the appeals on the ground that a transfer application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer by the petitioner, in which records were summoned on 27.1.2011, but the records were not sent and on the alleged date when the order was passed, no hearing was done and the petitioner did not know about the judgment passed by the Naib Tehsildar on 29.12.201 prior to 31.3.2012. When the petitioner heard that the mutation applications have been allowed, it is thereafter, she came on 2.4.2012 at Tehsil and filed an application for obtaining the copy of the judgment. The Sub Divisional Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any evidence in support of her statement of fact.;