ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Daga for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Rajesh Yadav, who has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 5.
(2.) THE writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner claims on the basis of succession while the opposite party claims on the basis of a sale deed executed by Sandeep Goayl, who claimed on the basis of an unregistered will executed by his sister Shalini Mittal. Shalini Mittal had admittedly been mutated on the basis of a will executed by Vidya Bhusan. This will was in favou rof Shalini Mittal and her mother -in -law.
(3.) THE Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 22.10.2014 has decided the revision against the petitioner holding therein that the sale deed in favour of the contesting respondent had been executed by a person, who was duly recorded in the revenue records. It is also admitted between the parties that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Sandeep Goyal in favour of respondent no. 2 is pending consideration before the trial court being Suit No. 725 of 2012.;