JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ram Sajiwan Prajapati and Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Counsel for respondent No.3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Lalla Prasad had three marriages in his life time. His first wife was Dhankali. Contesting respondent No.3-Daljeet was born from wedlock of Lalla Prasad and Dhankali. After one year of marriage Dhankali left the house of her husband accordingly Lalla Prasad solemnized his second marriage with Gaura Devi and from the wedlock of Lalla Prasad and Gaura Devi two daughters Heerawati and Bhanwati were born, who are married. Second wife Gaura died in the life time of Lalla Prasad accordingly Lalla Prasad was married with Champa @ Chameli and from the wedlock of Lalla Prasad and Champa @ Chameli, petitioner Man Singh was born. Lalla Prasad died on 23.08.2004 and after the death of Lalla Prasad, name of petitioner and respondent No.3 were recorded by the Registrar Kanoongo vide order dated 31.03.2004 in the place of Lalla Prasad in respect to village-Sidhwa and in respect to village-Mayee report under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by respondent No.3 that his name solely be recorded in the place of deceased Lalla Prasad, the cases were consolidated and registered as Case No.333 before Tehsildar (Judicial) Mariyahoo, Jaunpur, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. Tehsildar after considering the evidences adduced by both parties in detail has held vide order dated 10.07.2007 that petitioner and respondent No.3 are sons of Lalla Prasad and rejected the mutation application filed by respondent No.3 to record his name solely in the place of Lalla Prasad, the order of Registrar Kanoogo dated 31.03.2004 was maintained. Against the order dated 10.07.2007 respondent No.4 filed Revision No.380 of 2007 before Commissioner, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were impleaded as opposite parties in the revision who have contested the proceeding of revision, respondent No.3 has prayed before Additional Commissioner that revision of respondent No.4 be allowed, the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2011 dismissed the revision filed by respondent No.4 and maintained the order of Tehsildar dated 10.07.2007. Against the order dated 10.07.2007 respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before Sub Divisional officer and the pandency of the revision against the same impugned order dated 10.07.2007 was brought to the notice of appellate Court (Sub Divisional officer) but appellate court vide order dated 21.03.2013 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.3 set aside the order dated 10.07.2007 and remanded the matter for fresh decision by Tehsildar. Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 21.03.2013 through revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before respondent No.1, the revision was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 03.06.2013 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner.

3. This Court at the time of admission after hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 passed the detailed interim order dated 06.09.2013 which is as follows:

“Heard Shri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

Issue notice to respondent no.4 returnable at an early date. Steps within 10 days.

Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Learned counsel is permitted to implead the concerned Tehsildar as Respondent No.6 on whose behalf also the learned standing counsel shall seek instructions.

An order came to be passed by the Tehsildar in relation to mutation of the holding on 10th July 2007, whereby the petitioner and respondent no. 3 Daljeet were both treated to be sons of