Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner Basti, Division Basti and the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Sadar Basti.
(2.) FACTS of the case briefly stated are that three mutation cases are said to be pending regarding the same property. These three separate mutation cases have been filed claiming on the basis of different documents. One case is based on a mortgage deed. The second claim is based on a sale deed while in the third case mutation is claimed on the basis of will. It appears that the petitioners filed an application under section 192 -A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for consolidating these three cases. This application was rejected and the order rejecting this application has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these three cases pertained to the same property and, therefore they should have been consolidated and in failing to do so the Courts below have committed manifest illegality. He has placed reliance on the judgments Mahant Baba Dharam Das v. Mahant Dharam Das, : AIR 1917 All. 336 as also a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram Badan Rai v. Union of India, : (1998) LS (SC) 1040 insofar as the first judgment cited is concerned, the same deals with civil suit governed by the Civil Procedure Code. This case law therefore, has not application in the instant petition which pertains to section 192 -A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.;