M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions have been taken together, as there exists conflicting orders of the Board of Revenue between same parties and in regard to the same issue. Brief facts of the case :
(2.) In writ petition No.7397/2011, mutation of land was opened in favour of Kalu and others. A challenge to it was made by the petitioner Narsingh Ram by maintaining an appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioner/s preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner who allowed it with remand of the case to Tehsildar for a decision afresh. It was challenged by the non-petitioner/s and appeal therein was allowed by the Board of Revenue.
(3.) In the writ petition bearing No.8871/2012, mutation of the land was made in favour of the non-petitioners Narsingh Ram based on the adoption deed. The mutation of the land in favour of Narsingh Ram was challenged by Govinda s/o Kalu and others by maintaining an appeal before the SDO Court, which was dismissed. Govinda s/o Kalu and others preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which was allowed. A revision petition was preferred by Narsingh Ram has been allowed by the Board of Revenue.;