The court emphasized that mutation proceedings must adhere to legal principles and fair hearing, setting aside arbitrary decisions made by lower authorities.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. R.C.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No-5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No-1 to 4.

2. Respondent No-6 is stated to be proforma respondent, as such, notice to respondent No-6 is dispensed with.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard & disposed of finally without inviting Counter-affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot Nos-959, 960, 976, 977, 991,992, 1001/1, 1069, 1071,1075, 1077, 1072/1, 1078, 1079, 1106, 1121, 1125 & 988 total area 1.5050 hectare situated in Mauja-Sarahu, Pergana & Tehsil-Mau Nath Bhajan, District-Mau. According to petitioners, the family pedigree of petitioner's family is a under:-

According to respondent No-5, her family pedigree was as under:-

According to respondent No-5 petitioner are stranger to her family and the family pedigree of petitioners' is as follows:-

According to petitioners, Iliyas has expired on 14.3.2001 but according to respondent no.4, Illiyas expired on 3.2.1982 and Smt. Kharu Nisha expired on 27.5.2005. The names of Ziyaul Hasan & Faizul Hasan were recorded on the basis of P.A.11 vide order dated 25.5.2001. Respondent No-5/Shamshu Nisha filed an application under Section-34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 5.3.2011 to record her name alongwith defendant No. 1/Kamarun Nisha in place of deceased father Iliyas after recalling the order dated 25.5.2001 passed on the basis of P.A 11. Petitioners' father filed their objection to the application dated 5.3.2011 filed by respondent no.5. Tahasildar heard the matter & reserved the judgment on 15.9.2018. Tahasildar recorded the statement of certain persons in the aforementioned mutation proceeding on 26.12.2018 & 30.12.2018, accordingly, a report was submitted by Lekhpal on 26.12.2018 in the aforementioned mutation case. Tahsildar vide order dated 1.1.2019 recalled the order dated 25.5.2001 passed on the basis of P.A-11 and directed to record the name of respondent Nos-5 & 6 in place of Iliyas after expunging the name of Ziyaul Hasan and Faizul Hasan. Petitioners' father challenged the order dated 1.1.2019 through appeal before Sub Divisional Officer which was heard & allowed vide order dated 28.1.2019, setting aside the order dated 1.1.2019 passed by Tahasildar & remanded the matter before Tahasildar to pass fresh order on merit in accordance with law. Respondent No-5 challenged the appellate order dated 28.1.2019 through revision before Commissioner which was heard by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Azamgarh Division Azamgarh and the same was allowed vide order dated 4.12.2019, setting aside the appellate order dated 28.1.2019 and remanded the matter before appellate Court for fresh decision of appeal in accordance with law. Petitioners' challenged the order dated 4.12.2019 through revision before Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 12.2.2014. Hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners challenging the order dated 12.2.2024 passed by Board of Revenue and 4.12.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner & 1.1.2019 passed by Tahasildar.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Tahasildar has reserved the judgement/order in the mutation case on 15.9.2018 but recorded the statement of certain person on 26.12.2018/30.12.2018 which fully demonstrate that everything was done surreptitiously in clandestine manner. He further submitted that even in mutation proceeding, the Court is to proceed in accordance with law rather in arbitrary and ex parte manner. He further submitted that Sub Divisional Officer has rightly exercised the appellate jurisdiction in setting aside the order of Tahasildar dated 1.1.2019 and sent the matter back before Tahasildar to decide the mu