JUDGMENT :

1. By means of the instant petition instituted by Bhagwan Das, Chela Balram Das, a challenge was laid to the order dated 11.11.1998, passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, whereby the revision preferred under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was allowed and the order passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Tanda dated 13.01.1992 was set aside and the name of Mahant Narayan Das, Chela Ram Newaz was directed to be recorded in the revenue records.

2. It will be relevant to notice that initial proceedings were instituted before this Court by Bhagwan Das, Chela Balram Das, who during the proceedings had died and is now substituted by Mahant Dhananjay Das. Even the respondent no.4-Shiv Shankar Singh expired and is now represented by his son Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh.

3. The issue in the instant petition relates to the mutation in respect of the properties which are dedicated to Thakur Ji Maharaj installed in a temple situate in Village Jiyapur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. The dispute arose when the erstwhile Mahant Sri Narayan Das expired in the year 1985. The dispute regarding mutation relating to the Plot No.122, situated in Village Nausanda and dedicated to the temple Thakur Ji Maharaj became alive. The records also indicate that apart from the properties situated in Village Nausanda there are several other properties which are dedicated to Thakur Ji Maharaj and the said properties were being managed by the Sarbarkar Mahant Narayan Das.

5. As per the customs and rituals upon death of the Mahant whosoever is nominated as successor Sarbarkar takes charge. In the instant case, it is alleged that upon the death of Mahant Narayan Das in the year 1985 several persons came forward to stake claim over the properties of the temple and each claiming to be the Chela of Narayan Das. Amongst such stake holders, a mutation application was moved by one Sri Balram Das alleged disciple (Chela) of deceased Mahant Narayan Das. Another application for mutation was moved by Ram Das and another by Mangal Das. Ram Das claimed himself to be disciple of Mahant Narayan Das, whereas Mangal Das claimed himself to be the disciple of Ram Newaz Das who was the Guru of deceased Mahant Narayan Das. All three applications for mutation were clubbed together and were being considered as Case No.193. Mahant Mangal Das and Ram Das withdrew their applications with the consequence that the application moved by Balram Das remained uncontested.

5. In the case of Mahant Balram Das four witnesses were examined namely Prahlad Verma, Babu Ram, the Halka Lekhpal and Bhagwan Das who is the original petitioner of this petition. It is stated that Sri Balram Das in Case No.193 made deposition to the effect that Balram Das had been nominated and was in control of the properties of the temple and as such after the death of Mahant Narayan Das, it was a legitimate claim of Balram Das to be considered as Sarbarkar of the temple property.

6. The record indicates that by means of order dated 31.03.1986 the Tehsildar did not find favour with the contentions on the ground that no written proof was submitted to establish the death of Mahant Narayan Das, moreover, the applicant of Case No.193 namely Sri Balram Das also did not appear in the witness box nor filed any document to indicate that he was nominated as the successor by Mahant Narayan Das, hence, he rejected the mutation application.

7. Being aggrieved against the said order dated 31.03.1986 Balram Das preferred an appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901. The appellate court noticing an alleged agreement/compromise found that neither the said compromise as filed inspired confidence as there was nothing on record to substantiate the death of Mahant Narayan Das and it also noted that in case if Mahant Narayan Das had nominated his successor then there would have been some written document or instrument in favour of Balram Das which wa