Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Satya Prakash Pandey for respondent no.3.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.1.2012 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.1013/LR/2006-07 as well as the order dated 8.1.2007 passed in Mutation Case No.783/354 of 2006.
(3.) Indisputably, the disputed property belongs to one Munna who is son of Satanand. The petitioners claiming that Munna had died, got their names mutated in place of Munna. After lapse of considerable time, the third respondent filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer claiming that the name of the petitioners had been mutated on the basis of forged and manipulated proceedings, inasmuch as he is the person to whom the property belonged and he is still alive. On such application being filed by the third respondent, the Sub Divisional Officer in purported exercise of power under Sections 33 and 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, by order dated 22.10.1997, allowed the application filed by the third respondent and directed for name of Munna @ Pitamber S/o of Satanand to be entered in the revenue records. The name of the petitioners was directed to be expunged. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, by order dated 21.4.2004, has set aside the order dated 22.10.1997, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and has remitted the matter to the Tehsildar for passing a fresh order after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In pursuance of the remand order, the parties led evidence, both documentary and oral, before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar framed four issues and recorded a specific finding that the third respondent is not the same person as Munna to whom the property belonged. It has been held that the third respondent is the son of Satanand, whose father's name was Gaya Prasad, whereas Satanand, father of Munna, to whom the property belonged, was the son of one Bhagwandeen. The other finding recorded by the Tehsildar which is against the petitioners is that they failed to prove that Munna, to whom the property belonged, had in fact died. Consequently, the Tehsildar formed the opinion that in the revenue records, the name of Munna S/o Satanand should continue.;