DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Office report dated 11.04.2017 states that notice on respondent no.4 shall be presumed to be sufficient. The petitioner is a widowed lady of about 92 years of age, who has instituted this writ petition challenging the order dated 08.09.2016, passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing her revision petition preferred by her against the order dated 01.02.2016, passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, whereby her application seeking transfer of the mutation case from Tehsil Jaisinghpur, district-Sultanpur has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner, whereby her application for transfer has been rejected. He has also challenged the order dated 12.12.2015, whereby the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad has allowed the application moved by the respondent no.4 transferring the mutation case from the court of Tehsildar, Sadar, district-Sultanpur to the court of Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur, district-Sultanpur.
(2.) The original tenure holder of the land which is the subject matter of mutation proceedings pending before the court below was one Mohd. Sageer. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mohd. Sabbir had married twice. He initially married to one Smt. Jaitoon Nisha (not the petitioner) who belonged to Tehsil-Lambhua, district Sultanpur (herein after referred to as "Jaitoon Nisha-I"). It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second wife of Mohd. Sabbir is the petitioner (herein after referred to as "Jaitoon Nisha-II"). Mohd. Sabbir is said to have died in the year 1993, however, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before his death, he had alienated the property in favour of petitioner-Jaitoon Nisha-II by way of gift deed (Hibbanama) dated 20.02.1990, on the basis of which, the name of petitioner-Jaitoon Nisha-II was also mutated in the relevant revenue records by means of an order dated 20.08.1990. After the death of Mohd. Sabbir in the year 1993, respondent no.4, who was born out of the wedlock of late Mohd. Sabbir with Jaitoon Nisha-I, moved an application seeking mutation of his name over the property, which was already gifted by late Mohd. Sabbir to the petitioner-Jaitoon Nisha-II. Petitioner-Jaitoon Nisha-II filed objections against the said application seeking mutation moved by the respondent no.4 and the said mutation case has been numbered as case no.572, under section 34/35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Mohd. Sageer v. Jaitoon Nisha-II. Petitioner-Jaitoon Nisha-II being aged about 92 years was finding it troublesome to pursue the case at Tehsil-Jaisinghpur as she is residing in Village-Bhulki, Tehsil-Sadar, district-Sultanpur and accordingly she moved an application before the Commissioner seeking transfer of the said case from tehsil-Jaisinghpur to Tehsil-Sadar, district-Sultanpur. The Commissioner by means of an order dated 27.11.2014 allowed the said transfer application which was registered as T.A. Case No.1087 and transferred the case from the court of Naib Tehsildar, Barausa, Tehsil-Jaisinghpur district-Sultanpur to the court of Tehsildar, Sadar, district Sultanpur. Concealing the said fact, it appears that the respondent no.4 moved another transfer application before the Commissioner which was registered as Transfer Application No.866. By means of an order dated 12.12.2015 the Commissioner transferred the case no. 572 from the Court of Tehsildar, Sadar, District-Sultanpur to the court of Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur, district-Sultanpur.
(3.) On coming to know about the said order, an application by the petitioner before the Commissioner apprising him of the earlier order date 27.11.2014 and also stating that the respondent no.4 while filing transfer application had concealed the order dated 27.11.2014, however, the Commissioner by means of an order dated 01.02.2016 rejected the said application which was registered as T.A. No.941 stating the reason that the transfer application has been moved only with a view to prolong the proceedings. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 01.02.2016 has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 08.09.2016. It is in these circumstances the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 08.09.2016, 01.02.2016 and 12.12.2015.;