SHITLA PD. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31. 1. 1996 passed by the S. D. O. and order dated 5. 4. 1999 passed by the Board of Revenue.

( 2 ) THE brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the disputed khatas were recorded in the name of Smt. Mahadei, mother of the petitioner in khafauni 1386 fasli. She died in the year 1970. She had two daughters, one Smt. Rani Devi and other Smt. Ram Dularl. Smt. Ram Dulari has also died and in accordance with the provisions of Section 172 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it is alleged that her right will devolve on the nearest surviving heirs, The petitioner claimed that she being the heir of Smt. Mahadei applied for mutation of her name along with her sister Smt. Ram Dulari in the year 1979 after the death of Smt. Mahadei. It is stated that Daya Shanker and others, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed objection against the said mutation claiming that they were daughters son of Smt. Mahadei from two daughters, Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Chhabiraja who had died in the life time of Smt. Mahadei. Daya Shanker and Lalmani who were sons of Smt. Shanti Devi and Kallash Nath and shambhoo Nath who were sons of Smt. Chhabiraja got their names mutated in the revenue record not disclosing the correct fact that there were two daughters of Smt. Mahadei who were still living. It is further stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 alleged that they were entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Mahadei as their mothers were also alive on the death of Smt. Mahadei along with Smt. Rani and Smt. Ram Dulari. The petitioner further alleged that the tahsildar by his order dated 20. 7. 1981 has held that the petitioner and Smt. Ram Dulari were the heirs of Smt. Mahadei and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were not the heirs and the names of Smt. Ram dulari and petitioner ,were recorded in place of Smt. Mahadei. An appeal was filed by Lalmani against the order of the Tahsildar dated 20. 7. 1981 before the S. D. O. in which a mlschlevtous compromise was filed between the parties. The said compromise was filed on behalf of Smt. Ram Dulari by Sri R. S. Yadav. Advocate, and by Maria Naraln, Advocate on behalf of Smt. Rani Devi. Lalmani and Daya Shanker were identified by Sri Amar Nath Tiwari. Advocate, kallash Nath and Shambhoo Nath did not file appeal against the order dated 20. 7. 1981 therefore, the order became final. The petitioner challenged the compromise on the point that it was not verified before the S. D. O. before the appeal was pending. It is further alleged that no power or vakalatnama has been given by the petitioner to Sri Maha Narain. Advocate, to appear before the appellate court and enter into compromise. It is further stated that on 31. 1. 1996 the appellate court decided the appeal in terms of compromise. The petitioner has contended that the compromise only says that Lal Man! and Daya Shanker will have 1/4 share and rest of 3/4 share will be given to the petitioner. While accepting the compromise, the S. D. O. has said that the original mutation order passed by the Supervisor Qanoongo under PK 11 under Section 35a of the Land Revenue Act shall remain operative. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad. On 7. 10. 1996 the Commissioner recommended that the finding of the trial court that Smt. Shanker Devi and Smt. Chhabiraja had died predeceased mahadei, is correct, consequently, the order of Superviser Qanoongo is correct and recommended that the order of the trial court be mutated. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference on 15. 10. 1997. The petitioner has accordingly challenged the order of the Board of revenue on the ground that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order nor has power to recall the same. The petitioner has further contended that the Board of Revenue assu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document