Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28.2.2014 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue in Revision No. 30/06 (Bachchoo Singh and Pappu alias Vijay Singh v. Fateh Singh and others) by which the revision has been allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.8.2006 and maintaining the earlier orders dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and the order dated 21.4.2006 passed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner has purchased a piece of land from one Saba through registered sale-deed on 8.6.1990. On the basis of registered sale-deed, the petitioner has filed mutation application before the Naib Tehsildar, which was numbered as Case No. 161/91-92 (Fateh Singh v. Saba). The said case was dismissed on 9.1.1991 holding the sale-deed to be forged. It is thereafter the petitioner has filed another mutation application, which was allowed ex parte on 30.10.1992. Seeking recall of this order, an application was filed by Sri Bachchoo Singh son of Saba stating that when his father had died, at that time, he was minor and after coming to know about the mutation order dated 30.10.1992, he immediately filed an application seeking recall of the earlier order, on 1.1.2005. To this application an objection was filed by the otherside stating therein that recall application was barred by time and also not maintainable. The Naib Tehsildar, after hearing the parties, had allowed the recall application on 6.7.2005 and recalled the order dated 30.10.1992.

4. Against the aforesaid order dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner, herein, has filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was numbered as Case No. 25/2004-05 (Fateh Singh v. Bachchoo Singh and another). The appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 21.4.2006.

5. Aggrieved petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Agra Division Agra, against the order dated 21.4.2006, which was numbered as Revision No. 118 of 2006 (Fateh Singh v. Bachchoo Singh). The revision was heard and allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 30.8.2006 by setting aside the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the order dated 9.7.2005 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and maintaining his earlier order dated 30.10.1992.

6. Against the aforesaid order, the otherside had filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was numbered as Revision No. 30/06 (Bachchoo Singh and Pappu alias Vijay Singh v. Fateh Singh and another). The revision has been allowed and the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been set aside and the orders dated 6.7.2005 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer have been maintained.

While assailing this order, Sri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that recall application filed by the respondent was barred by time, therefore without condoning the delay, recall application should not have been allowed.

7. The Naib Tehsildar, while recalling the order, has observed that the otherside (late Saba) was living outside the village and the service of notice upon him was not sufficient. Further, the son of Saba who has filed recall application was minor at that time meaning thereby he has considered explanation furnished by the otherside for not filing the recall application earlier and after considering the same, he has allowed the recall application therefore it cannot be said that the Court concerned has not applied its mind regarding condonation of delay and in my view, it shall amount the deemed condonation. The matter was different in case there was no e