JUDGMENT :

Sangeeta Chandra, J.

Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. M.A. Khan and Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil- Colonelganj, District- Gonda, in the mutation proceedings and also the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by him on recall application as well as order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, thereby rejecting the revision.

3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that one Sumiran Singh s/o Raghubir Singh, resident of Village- Basehiya, was un-married and the petitioners as well as Devendra Singh looked after him till his old age. In the last stage of his life, Sumiran Singh, out of love and affection, executed a will deed on 11.04.1984 in the name of petitioners and Devendra Singh. Thereafter, Sumiran Singh passed away on 13.04.1984. After the death of Sumiran Singh, the petitioners and Devendra Singh came into the possession over the property and filed the application for mutating their names on 17.09.1992. Since the property was situated in two villages, therefore, two mutation applications were filed.

4. After the necessary enquiry including recording of evidence of witnesses, the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Colonelganj, District- Gonda passed an order dated 25.07.1994 for expunging the name of the deceased Sumiran Singh and mutating the names of the petitioners and Devendra Singh as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. Smt. Ram Sanwari w/o Sri Sher Bahadur Singh filed a recall application which was rejected on 04.01.1995. Another recall application was moved by Shailendra Bahadur Singh, Mahendra Pratap Singh both sons of Sher Bahadur Singh for setting aside mutation proceedings dated 25.07.1994 as well as the order dated 04.01.1995 on the ground that Sumiran Singh has transferred the land in question in favour of Smt. Ram Sanwari Devi, the mother of the applicants. The said recall application was moved on 08.08.2011, which was allowed by the Tehsildar on 30.09.2013.

5. The petitioners thereafter challenged the order dated 30.09.2013 by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Colonelganj. The said appeal was rejected on 10.10.2013 on the ground that the order dated 30.09.2013 was interlocutory in nature. The petitioner further filed a revision against such order of recall, which was allowed on 20.01.2016 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Colonelganj for deciding afresh after hearing both the parties.

6. The Tehsildar allowed the recall application on 08.12.2017, and thereafter the petitioners again filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Colonelganj on 26.03.2018. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision, which remained pending. In the meantime, the Tehsildar without giving the opportunity to the petitioners passed the final orders on the mutation application on 17.12.2018.

7. It has been submitted that by the order dated 17.12.2018, it was directed that the names of the private respondents be mutated and the name of the petitioners be expunged from the revenue records. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order, namely, Revision No. 01790 of 2018: Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh, which was also rejected by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. Hence this petition has been filed.

8. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the entry in the revenue records on 25.07.1994 could not have been expunged by entertaining the recall application that was filed in the year 2011. There was no finding recorded by the Tehsildar regarding possession and this Court has held in several decisions that a mutation application based on a registered or on un-registered sale deed should be decided only after giving a finding on possession. The order dated 25.07.1994 was passed after recor