The repeated mutation applications based on the same claim were an abuse of process, and mutation orders were not conclusive of the parties' title to the land.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have called in question an order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, dated 12.06.2019, passed in Revision No.2204 of 2017/Mathura Computerized No.R20170150002204 Bihari Lal Vs. Pappu, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short 'the Act'). It is stated at the outset by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Bihari Lal that this Revision in fact, invokes the powers of the Board under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, (for short 'the Code') and that the powers exercised while passing the order impugned is referable to the aforesaid provision and not Section 219 of the Act.

2. The dispute in this petition arises out of proceedings for mutation under Section 49 of the Code brought by the second respondent, who laid claim to a certain agricultural property comprised of Khata No.68, Khasra No.116, admeasuring 0.223 hectares, situate in Village Mauza Abdul Nabipur Khaadar, Tehsil Maant, District Mathura on the basis of a registered Will dated 28.09.1984, claimed to be executed in his favour by his grandfather, one Mangal. The land above detailed, is hereinafter referred to as the 'land in dispute'.

3. The petitioner has depicted the relationship between parties on the basis of a pedigree set out in paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition, which is shown below:

4. To the aforesaid pedigree, the only dispute raised by the second respondent is that of the two sons of Hari Singh, begotten of his second wife Savitri, Pappu @ Praveen Kumar, is said to be not a son of Hari Singh. That apart, there is no dispute to the pedigree as above depicted.

5. The case of the parties in short is that the original tenure holder was one Fally. The land in dispute devolved upon his son Mangla. After Mangla's decease, the said land went by intestate succession to Hari Singh and after Hari Singh, it went the same way to his heirs, as depicted in the pedigree. Now, Hari Singh, appears to be a much married man who had two wives. This fact is not in issue between parties that respondent Bihari Lal was begotten of Hari Singh's first wife whereas the first and second petitioners are sons begotten of the second wife, Savitri, a petitioner herself. Elaborating on the case, as aforesaid, the petitioner claims that upon death of Mangla, Hari Singh being his sole heir, succeeded to the tenure/land in dispute under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Z.A. Act'). This succession was acknowledged in terms of a mutation order that came to be passed on the basis of an entry in P.A-11 under Section 33-A of the Act. It is the petitioner's case that dispute has arisen at the stage of passage of the land in dispute from Mangla to Hari Singh. This dispute has cropped up at the instance of the second respondent Bihari Lal, who propounded a registered Will dated 28.09.1984 executed by Mangala, his grandfather bequeathing the land in dispute to Bihari Lal, excluding all his heirs. The petitioners have condemned the aforesaid Will as a forged document and refused to acknowledge it as the genuine last testament of Mangala.

6. An application seeking mutation on the basis of the aforesaid Will was made by respondent No.2, under Section 34 of the Act, seeking to expunge the name of Hari Singh that had came to be recorded on the basis of an entry in PA-11, treating him to be a heir under the law who succeeded intestate. The aforesaid mutation application was registered as Case No.223R. This application was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar Raya, District Mathura by an order dated 10.08.1992.

7. From the said order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, an appeal bearing No.86/21/7 of 1993-94 was carried to the Sub-Divisional Officer. This appe