SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Yadav, the counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted Case No. 4409 of 2015 under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') for mutation of her name in the revenue records by virtue of a sale deed dated 7.10.1989 executed by Yadunaath Singh, the recorded tenure holder of the disputed plots. Sri Ramnaresh Singh the son of Yadunaath, i.e., the alleged vendor filed his objections and opposed the application filed by the petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar vide his order dated 2.4.2018 dismissed Case No. 4409 of 2015. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 04512 of 2018 against the order dated 2.4.2018 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy District Magistrate vide his order dated 11.5.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision No. 1141 of 2018 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad, i.e., respondent no. 2 and the Board vide its order dated 31.1.2019 allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and directed the Naib Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in the revenue records in accordance with the prayer made in the application filed by the petitioner. Consequently, Case No. 02067 of 2019 was registered before the Naib Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar vide his order dated 25.2.2019 directed for mutation in the revenue records by recording the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the heirs of Ramnaresh Singh filed Revision No. 00568 of 2019 which was admitted by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 16.3.2019 and through the same order, the Additional Commissioner directed that till the disposal of the revision, parties shall maintain status-quo over the disputed plots. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16.3.2019 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court through Misc. Single No. 8358 of 2019. The Misc. Single No. 8358 of 2019 was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 28.3.2019 and the order dated 16.3.2019 was set-aside on the ground that it was a non-speaking order because no reasons for admitting the revision had been given in the said order and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner to pass fresh orders in accordance with the observations made in the case. It appears that the matter is still pending before the Additional Commissioner. Meanwhile, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 who are the heirs of one of the opposite parties in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 filed an application before the Board of Revenue praying that the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by it be recalled and fresh orders may be passed in Revision No. 1141 of 2018 after hearing the respondent nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the applicants. On the aforesaid application, Case No. REC/929/2019 was registered before the Board of Revenue, i.e., respondent no. 2. The recall application was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. The respondent no. 2 vide its order dated 11.4.2019 directed that notices be issued to the petitioner on the recall application and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. By its order dated 11.4.2019, the Board of Revenue also directed that the case be posted for hearing on 16.5.2019 and till the date fixed in the case, parties shall maintain status-quo regarding the disputed plots. The order dated 11.4.2019 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the recall application registering Case No. REC/929/2019 was not maintainable as the revision against the order dated 25.2.2019 passed by the Naib Tehsildar was already pending before the Additional Commissioner and a review application had been filed by the other opposite parties before the Board of Revenue for review of the order dated 31.1.2019. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction and liable to be set-aside.;