Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh and Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and perused the record.
(2.) The present petition has been filed by four petitioners through their registered power of attorney holder Mohammad Aslam seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.8.2017 passed by the respondent no. 1-Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 130 of 2002-03 (National Sugar Institute vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta and others). It is further prayed in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3-Tehsildar, Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar to decide the Mutation Application No. 540 of 2001-02 (Ajay Kumar Gupta and others vs. National Sugar Institute) pending before him within a stipulated period.
(3.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners through their power of attorney holder Mohammad Aslam filed an application supported by an affidavit on 25.2.2002 under Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (apparently wrongly mentioned as U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) for mutation of their names on arazi nos. 645, 655, 656, 657, 669, 670, 671, 672 and 673 before the Tehsildar, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that they have purchased the land in question through sale deeds executed from the years 1957 to 1959, copies whereof were annexed along with the affidavit filed in support of the application. From perusal of the record, it appears that these sale deeds were executed on 17.4.1956, 17.4.1957, 22.4.1957, 18.12.1958 and 13.2.1959. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Tehsildar on 12.4.2002. It may be noticed that the aforesaid application was filed after about 43 years from the date of execution of the last sale deed. In the order, it has been noticed that due process was taken to serve the respondent no. 5-Natonal Sugar Institute, Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.S.I.') and from 4.8.2002 to 12.4.2002 (i.e. within a period of four days), N.S.I. was thrice granted time to file objections, however no objection was filed to the mutation application, therefore, the name of N.S.I. was deleted from the record and names of the petitioners were directed to be recorded. Further, perusal of the order indicates that the sale deed was executed by the private parties and the record also reflects that the land in fact had been acquired for N.S.I. and name of the N.S.I. had already been mutated in place of private land holders. The N.S.I. filed a restoration application before the Tehsildar for recalling the order dated 12.4.2002 and the Tehsildar vide order dated 20.4.2002 recalled its earlier order dated 12.4.2002 and issued notices to the parties as objections have already been received by him. The aforesaid order of the Tehsildar dated 20.4.2002 was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision before the respondent no. 2-Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur under Section 219 of the UP Land Revenue Act. The said revision was allowed by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 2.12.2002 and the order of the Tehsildar dated 20.4.2002 was set aside and his earlier ex-parte order dated 12.4.2002 was restored. The aforesaid order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 was challenged by the N.S.I. before the Board of Revenue, UP, Lucknow (respondent no. 1). The aforesaid revision was allowed vide order dated 25.8.2017, which is under challenge in the present petition.;