B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Saral Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ghanshyam Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4.
(2.) In view of the nature of the order sought to be passed, it is not necessary to issue any notice to the respondents no.5, 6 and 7.
(3.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the orders dated 18.11.2016, 13.6.2014 and 15.01.2014. The property in dispute belongs to one Mahendra Pal. His wife Kaikayee divorced him and married another person. Mahendra Pal has died. Upon his death an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by Nanhi Devi, mother of Mahendra Pal for mutation of names and the application was allowed on 14.12.2011. Kaikayee is stated to have sold the property to the petitioner through a sale deed dated 22.03.2010 and on the basis of the sale deed the petitioner is stated to have initiated mutation proceedings which was allowed by order dated 11.3.2011. The respondent no.5-Nanhi Devi challenged the order in appeal before the SDM which was dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2011 which was not challenged by her and therefore, it is stated that the order dated 11.3.2011 has become final. Thereafter in 2014, Nanhi Devi initiated mutation proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar. The petitioner moved transfer applications dated 4.1.2014 and on 6.1.2014 seeking transfer of the proceedings as well as stay of the same. In the meantime, an order was passed on 15.1.2014, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, allowing the mutation application of Nanhi Devi. In this order, there is a clear finding recorded that Kaikayee had married one Suraj Pal in 2008 and was living with Suraj Pal, therefore she could not have sold the property of Mahendra Pal to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which has also been dismissed by order dated 13.6.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision which has also been dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2016. According to the petitioner, he has a valid sale deed in his favour executed by Kaikayee and the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.5 were fraudulent proceedings in order to grab the property.;