JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 4 are real brothers. A registered will deed was executed by petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad on 17.01.2002 in favour of petitioner in respect of his entire property situated in Village Sonvarsha, Bahuara and Araji Mafi Bal Govind Ram Upadhaya. Petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad died on 12.10.2009, accordingly petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of registered will deed executed on 17.01.2002 by late Vijay Prasad. The cases were registered as Case Nos. 552, 553 and 554. Respondent No. 4 also applied for mutation of his name on the basis of a will deed executed on 28.01.2002 which were registered as Case Nos. 626, 627 and 628. During pendency of the mutation case, respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit No. 333 of 2010 challenging the validity of the will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No. 4 and petitioner have entered into a compromise on 02.01.2015 in Civil Suit No 333 of 2010. Accordingly, Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 was decreed in terms of compromise vide judgment dated 20.01.2015. A compromise was also entered into between both parties in aforementioned mutation cases 552 553 and 554 accordingly, an order was passed by respondent No. 3 in the mutation proceeding to record the name of petitioner in place of deceased tenure holder Vijay Prasad vide order dated 26.05.2016. After passing of order dated 26.05.2016, a recall application has been filed by respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 3 and vide order dated 17.05.2018 respondent No. 3 ordered to expunge the name of petitioner and to record the name of petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 being natural heirs of deceased Vijay Prasad. Against the order dated 17.05.2018 petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 taking specific ground that civil suit in respect to the registered will deed in question has been decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 20.01.2015 but the appellate court without considering the same has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 31.12.2018 on the ground that will deed has not been proved in accordance with law. Petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar as well as order of the appellate court before Board of Revenue through revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue has entertained the revision filed by petitioner and granted an interim order in the pending revision but after hearing both parties Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner’s revision vide order dated 04.03.2020, hence this writ petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, has passed the following order dated 06.08.2020:

“Shri R.K.R. Sharma, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent no. 2 after having obtained the no objection of Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, who had filed a caveat in this case.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his mutation application stands dismissed by the impugned order, although, the parties had entered into a compromise before the civil court, which is an admitted fact. The compromise admitted petitioner's claim.

Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter for admission/final disposal.”

4. On 20.09.2022 this Court passed the following interim order dated 20.09.2022:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the civil court has decided the civil suit filed by contesting respondent in respect to will deed in question on the basis of compromise which has attained finality and in the subsequent suit filed by contesting respondent, no injunction is operating.

Accordingly, till the next date of list