- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Ms. Manju Nagaur, learned counsel representing the respondent No.4.
(2.) Under challenge in this petition is an order dated 18.01.2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya on a revision petition preferred by the respondent No.5-Shivpujan against the order dated 06.05.2013, passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dariyabad, Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki whereby the revision petition has been admitted and the records of the trial court have also been summoned while issuing notices to the respondents in the revision petition. The Additional Commissioner has also passed an interim order whereby operation and implementation of the order dated 06.05.2013, has been stayed.
(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petition by respondent No.5, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 06.05.2013 has been filed with considerable delay. Further submission is that the revision petition was preferred on 29.12.2018 and without condoning the delay since revision petition was not competent, as such it could not have been admitted, neither the interim order could have been passed by the Additional Commissioner. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent No.5-Shivpujan has submitted that in fact the order dated 06.05.2013, passed by the Naib Tehsildar in this case was obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.5, namely, Rama Dheen by playing fraud, inasmuch as original tenure holder of the land in question was one Balgar, who had executed will deed in his life time on 06.07.2002 in favour of respondent No.5-Shivpujan and also in favour of Rama Dheen, but Rama Dheen acting fradulently had got another fabricated will prepared which is said to have been executed on 22.05.2006 and based on the said will deed dated 22.05.2006, Rama Dheen sought mutation of his name solely excluding the rights of respondent No.5-Shivpujan. Her submission further is that in fact will deed dated 06.07.2002 clearly recites that the same was executed by original tenure holder Balgar in favour of Rama Dheen and also in favour of Shivpujan under guardianship of Rama Dheen and as a matter of fact Rama Dheen has committed breach of trust and by committing fraud has got his name mutated on the basis of forged will deed dated 22.05.2006. Further submission advanced by Ms. Manju Nagaur, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Shivpujan is that Rama Dheen after getting his name mutated has even sold the property in question in favour of the petitioner and in these circumstances, respondent No.5-Shiv pujan is entitled to the benefit and protection as contained under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. Be that as it may, the application by Shivpujan seeking condonation of delay in preferring the revision petition before the revisional court was filed, however, without passing any order on the said application, the revision petition has been admitted and even interim order has also been passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, vide impugned order dated 18.01.2019.;