J.J.MUNIR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.2009/2018 filed by the petitioners who are five in number from an order dated 20.08.2018 of the Tehsildar, Sarai Akil passed in Case No. 7/141/36 of 1998-99 'Amrit Lal and another vs.Mahadev'. The petitioners claim right to the property in dispute of which the last recorded tenure holder was one, Mahadev. The petitioners claim on the basis of a Will dated 08.06.1975 said to have been executed in favour of his brothers, Amrit Lal and Bachchu Lal. It is claimed that this will was executed because Mahadev was issueless. After Mahadev's death, his widow Siyaprada's name came to be recorded on the basis of an entry in PA-11, and, on that basis in the revenue records. Siyaprada transferred rights in the suit property through a sale deed in favour of respondent no.3, Vinod Kumar. The sale deed aforesaid is one dated 02.01.2016. Vinod Kumar made an application for mutation on 26.05.2016 which was allowed. From the said mutation, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Sub Divisional Officer, Chayal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2017. Further a revision was carried by the petitioner to the Commissioner, which too has been dismissed. It is also recorded by the Board of Revenue in the order impugned that after name of Mahadev, the name of his widow was recorded by the Revenue Inspector on 23.10.1996 on the basis of an entry in PA-11. On 03.02.1998, Amrit Lal and others filed a mutation application propounding the Will that was numbered as mutation application no. 1/147/36 of 1997. The Naib Tehsildar, Sarai Akil rejected the said mutation application vide order dated 03.02.1998 and accepted the objections of Smt. Siyaprada recording her name on the basis of PA-11 entry. It is further noticed by the Board that in the village, chakbandi was notified vide publication of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 2004 and de-notification was done on 03.10.1992 under Section 52. The Board has held that these facts would show that one round of chakbandi had taken place in the course of five years. As such, the petitioners are not entitled now to seek mutation on the basis of an application made to the Tehsildar on 29.08.2017.
(3.) The petitioners have assailed the order of Board of Revenue saying that the Board has examined intricate questions of title which is beyond the purview of a Revenue Authority. Once mutation had been granted by the first authority in favour of the petitioner, there is no occasion for the Board to interfere with the order. The other side would have to establish their rights in a suit instituted for the purpose.;