JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned standing counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Service of notice upon respondent nos. 3 to 5 has been deemed sufficient under order of this Court dated 26.10.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plot no.130, total area 0.453 hectare, situated in village Hata, Tahasil-Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur was recorded as bhumidhari of respondent nos. 3 to 5. A sale deed was alleged to be executed on 4.4.2008 by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of petitioner in respect of 0.56 decimal of plot no.130, the sale deed was registered on 3.6.2008. Another sale deed was alleged to be executed on 12.5.2008 by respondent nos. 3 to 5 in favour of respondent nos. 2 in respect to 0.56 decimal of plot no.130. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation of his name in revenue record in the place of his vendor (respondent nos. 3 to 5) on the basis of sale deed dated 4.4.2008 / 3.6.2008 in respect of plot no. 130, area .56 decimal. Respondent no.2 has also filed an application for mutation of her name