Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to be issued for quashing the order dated 23.9.1994 and 3.3.2000 passed by Naib Tahsildar and the order dated 21.1.2001 passed by Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basti and the order dated 20.1.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Basti.

2. The case of the petitioner as argued by his counsel is that the father of the petitioner Ram Komal Singh died on 20.12.1985, leaving behind the petitioner as his only son and six daughters. Respondent No. 5, Smt. Asha Devi, is one of the married daughters. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records over other properties situated in district Gorakhpur. The land in dispute is situated in district Basti, namely, Gata No. 21, Khata No. 58 measuring 8 Biswas, 5 Biswansis and 8 Dhoor. The respondent No. 5 (Smt. Asha Devi) wife of Sri Kedar Nath Singh filed a mutation application before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Kaptanganj (Harraiya), District Basti on 26.7.1994 on the basis of a forged and concocted Will dated 24.1.1994. This mutation application was allowed without serving notice on the petitioner on 23.9.1994. An application for recall of the order dated 23.9.1994 was moved by the petitioner on the ground that he had no notice of such application being moved. His father had not written any Will in favour of his sister and since his father died on 20.12.1985, the Will could not have been executed on 24.1.1994.

3. This recall application was rejected on 3.3.2000, against which order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Gaur (Harraiya) district Basti, the petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 38 of 2001 (Awadhesh Singh v. Asha Singh) under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basti. This appeal was dismissed on 21.8.2001, against which the petitioner filed a revision under Section 219. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti erroneously dismissed the aforesaid revision by order dated 20.1.2005.

4. It is the case set up by the petitioner that the order passed on the mutation proceedings filed by Naib Tahsildar was obtained by fraud, therefore, the recall application was wrongly rejected. The appeal was dismissed without any basis and also the revision thereafter without application of mind.

5. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner was living with the petitioner till the time of his death and he had never lived with respondent No. 5 in district Basti, no Will was executed by him before his death.

6. The petitioner’s sister Asha Devi under the influence of her husband had filed the mutation application after 9 years of death of his father, Ram Komal Singh, and it was thus not maintainable. The petitioner alone is the legal heir being only son, and his name has been mutated in the revenue records with regard to property of village Bhagaura, Tappa Gahasar, district Gorakhpur. It is only with respect to one property i.e. the land in dispute, Plot No. 21 at Basti, that the dispute has been raised by Smt. Asha Devi as the land in question is situated in her village. Smt. Asha Devi, his sister did not give any statement in support of the application made by her before the learned Court below and the Will deed in question was also not proved in the Court of Naib Tahsildar as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. No expert opinion was called in respect of signatures and handwriting of the petitioner who was alleged to be the deed writer. The petitioner had in fact not written out the alleged Will, as made out by the respondent No. 5 in her application.

7. When the writ petition was filed and taken up as fresh, this Court on the basis of argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner had directed for maintenance of status quo over the land in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition.

8. Subsequently, a counter-affidavit was filed alongwith stay vacation application by re