JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the respondent no.2 in Revision No.149/154/B of 2009 filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the order dated 17.1.2001 passed by the respondent no.3 in Appeal No.3 of filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as well as the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by respondent no.4 in Case No.858 of under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

3. The facts in brief culled out from the pleadings in the writ petition, are as under:-

4. The petitioner is the daughter of late Ram Raj son of Shiv Poojan and is resident of village Bhawarpur (Sapahi) Pargana Kharid District Ballia. It is stated that late Ram Raj, the father of the petitioner died in the month of January 1997 and is survived by the petitioner as his legal heir and he did not have any male issue and petitioner was the only daughter of late Ram Raj. It is averred that the father of the petitioner had executed an unregistered will in favour of the petitioner on 4.12.1996. In the said will, Ram Nath Ram, Dhanpati Ram and Raj Narain were the witnesses. It is stated that immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner, the respondent no.5 who is the real brother of late Ram Raj namely Chandrika got his name mutated in the revenue records in place of the father of the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner came to know that the respondent no.5, the uncle of the petitioner has got his name mutated she filed a Case No.858 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for recording her name in the record of rights under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act claiming inheritance on the basis of the unregistered will dated 4.12.1996. The said Case No.858 was objected to by the respondent no.5, who filed his objections on 29.3.1997.

5. During the course of proceedings of Suit No.858, the petitioner produced Suhawan as plaintiff-witness no.1, who is husband of the petitioner and Dhanpati the witness of the will as also Ram Nath, the other witness of the will dated 4.12.1996 before the Tehsildar herein the Case no.858. The respondent no.5 himself entered the witness box as well as two other persons Lallan Ram and Hare Ram also gave their evidence in support of the case of respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 also filed an affidavit of Raj Narain, the third witness in the will dated 4.12.1996 who filed an affidavit to the effect that the will does not bear his thumb impression and denied the execution of the will, however, the said Raj Narain never appeared before the Tehsildar to give his statement in support of his affidavit nor was his subjected to cross-examination.

6. After the exchange of the pleadings and the evidence, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 12.10.1999 rejected the claim of the petitioner for recording her name on the basis of succession and affirmed the mutation entry already recorded in favour of respondent no.5.

7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.1999, preferred an appeal. The said appeal was also rejected on the ground that the will dated 4.12.1996 was not proved by the petitioner. The appellate Court further recorded that the will could easily be registered but as the same was not registered and as such there was no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the Tehsildar on 12.10.1999.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2001 passed by the respondent no.3, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent no.2. The said revision was also dismissed only on the ground that one of the witness of the will namely Raj Narain had given an affidavit denying his signatures on the will, the revisional Court affirmed the order dated 17.1.2001 as well as order dated 12.10.1999 vide his order dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). The petitioner further challenged the order dated 18.12.2001 by filing a Re