Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) When the original tenure holder Chhanni alias Parshu Ram Tripathi died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Satish Chandra, Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra and when only the name of Satish Chandra was entered as a successor of his, then, the other sons, namely, Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra complained the matter before the Naib Tehsildar. On 10.10.1977, the Naib Tehsildaar found that all the four sons were the successors of Chhanni and, therefore, the names of the four sons were ordered to be entered in the revenue records. Satish Chandra had filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 27.1.1978 and thereafter the revision which was filed was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. However, when Satish Chandra died on 25.7.2009 and the names of only his sons, namely, Pawan Kumar, Gyanendra Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar and widow Savitri Devi were found entered in the revenue records, the petitioners Bagesh Chandra, Umesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra objected to the entry by filing an application dated 10.7.2010. When on 6.6.2012 the application was dismissed and thereafter the revision which was filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 18.6.2012, the instant writ petition was filed.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when they filed the application on 10.7.2010 a report was called for by the Sub-Divisional Officer from the Tehsildaar and the report was also submitted on 27.7.2010 which had very categorically brought on record the orders of the Naib Tehsildar, the Appellate Court and of the Board of Revenue. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer simply dismissed the application of the petitioner saying that no provision of law had been mentioned by the petitioners. On the application, the revisional Court also, upon finding that no provision/section under which the application was moved had been mentioned, dismissed the revision.
(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that definitely from the tenor of the prayer made in the application it was clear that it was filed under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The heading of the certified copy of the order dated 6.6.2012 also mentioned that the same was passed under section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. He submits that there are a catena of decisions that if the prayer indicates as to under which provision the application had been filed, but the application actually does not mention the provisions/sections then the application cannot be dismissed on that ground alone. Non-mentioning of provisions of law will not disentitle a party to a relief which he was entitled for. Relief is to be granted on the basis of the pleadings made.;