Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri Ram Raj alongwith Sri Shujauddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amroha on the restoration application filed in Suit No. 153 of 2009 (Smt. Samar Jahan v. Shamshad Ahmad Khan and others) under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abilition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the order dated 10.2.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Moradabad Division, Moradabad in Revision No. 39 of 2013-14 (Smt. Samar Jahan v. Avez Naseem and others).

3. vide order dated 13.9.2013 the restoration application filed by respondent Nos. 3,4, and 5 was allowed and the preliminary decree dated 24.6.2009 as well as final decree dated 10.8.2009 were set aside whereas vide order dated 10.2.2015 the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.9.2013 has been dismissed.

4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed filed Suit No. 157 of 2009 under Section 176 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Amroha without impleading respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. In the aforesaid suit a preliminary decree was passed on 24.6.2009 and thereafter final decree was prepared on 10.8.2009.

5. The respondent Nos. 3,4, and 5 happen to be the sons of late Naseem Ahmad. Late Naseem Ahmad had two wives. From first wife there are three sons and from the second wife there are four sons. The petitioner, herein, claims herself to be the second wife of late Naseem Ahmad and on the basis of the registered will has filed partition suit impleading other co sharers excluding the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. In the suit a preliminary decree was passed on 24.6.2009 and thereafter final decree was prepared on 10.8.2009.

6. Prior to the filing of the suit the petitioner had filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Tehsildar for mutating her name over the land belonging to late Naseem Ahmad on the basis of the registered will. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record by the Tehsildar vide order dated 20.4.2009. Seeking recall of this order the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 who claim to be sons and heirs of late Naseem Ahmad have filed an application on the ground that on the basis of the collusive will mutation order was obtained without any notice or proclamation as required under the relevant Statute. The recall application was allowed on 31.3.2012. The mutation case proceeded and ultimately the application filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 2.5.2014.

7. Aggrieved petitioner had filed an appeal against the order dated 2.5.2014 that was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amroha. The petitioner has filed revision against the appellate order that too has been dismissed.

8. It is after recording her name in the revenue record, on the basis of the order passed in mutation proceeding, the petitioner filed Suit No. 157 of 2009 under Section 176 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Amroha without impleading respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 as defendants who are sons of late Naseem Ahmad. In the aforesaid suit a preliminary decree was passed on 24.6.2009 and thereafter final decree was prepared on 10.8.2009. Against this the respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 have filed an application seeking recall of the orders which was allowed vide order dated 13.9.2013. The revision filed by the petitioner against order dated 13.9.2013 has been dismissed.

9. Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner submits that since the respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 were not parties in the suit, therefore, the reca