Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 2014050001610/G/2014 (Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Anil Kumar Tripathi) and order dated 10.1.2014 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Pipraich, Sadar, Gorakhpur in case No. 2148 of 2013 (Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Amresh Singh and others).
(2.) VIDE order dated 10.1.2014, the restoration application filed by the respondent No. 4 seeking recall of the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the Naib Tehsildar has been dismissed, whereas by the subsequent order dated, 29.11.2014, the revision filed against the order dated 10.1.2014 has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to this case are that in a proceeding under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, being case No. 2148 of 2013 (Dan Bahadur Yadav v. Amresh Singh and others), in which respondent No. 3 was a party, the mutation application was allowed vide order dated 1.8.2013. Seeking recall of this order, respondent No. 4, claiming himself to be the partner of M/s. Bhavya Colonizers, Gorakhpur, filed an application on the ground that with respect to the aforesaid land, a mutation application is already engaging attention of the Naib Tehsildar, in which objection was filed, but leaving the same, a fresh mutation application was filed in which the order dated 8.1.2013 was obtained. The application was barred by time. This application was allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 10.1.2014. Aggrieved petitioner, filed revision against the said order on the ground that while passing the impugned order dated 10.1.2014, the petitioner was neither noticed, nor heard.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that M/s. Bhavya Colonizers, Gorakhpur has no right and interest in the aforesaid land, therefore, his application ought to have been rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner, in the impugned order, observed that with respect to the same land, in another mutation case between the same parties, the objection was filed, which is pending and pending that, another application was filed by the petitioner and the petitioner was successful in getting the order dated 1.8.2013 by concealing the facts. It has also been observed that pending one mutation application, another mutation application cannot be maintained.;