JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2023

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the instant application is allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.

Order on Writ petition

Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Guran son of Raghunath was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. After death of Guran, name of contesting respondents were ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa Ka-11 vide order dated 23.02.1990. Petitioners applied for mutation of their names only in place of recorded tenure holder Guran on the basis of succession under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The family pedigree which was given by contesting respondents in their pleading will be relevant in order or appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, which is as under:

3. Tehsildar vide order dated 09.01.1992 set aside the order dated 23.02.1990 and ordered to be record the name of petitioners in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran over plot No.70 area 1.14 dismal. Against the order dated 09.01.1992, contesting respondents filed restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2014 setting aside the order dated 09.01.1992 and restoring the mutation case on the original number. Against the order dated 25.08.2014 petitioner filed a restoration application along with the prayer for condonation of delay on 01.12.2014. Tehsildar vide order dated 20.11.2014 decided the dispute of mutation and ordered to record the name of petitioners as well as contesting respondents in place of deceased tenure holder Guran. Against the order dated 20.11.2014, petitioners filed a revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, which has been registered as Revision No.1973 of 2015. The aforementioned revision was heard by Board of Revenue and vide order dated 16.08.2021 disposed of the revision filed by petitioners and directed the Tehsildar to decide the restoration application dated 01.12.2014 filed by petitioners as directed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.02.2015. Tehsildar heard the mutation matter in pursuance of the order of revisional Court dated 16.08.2021 and vide order dated 09.03.2023 rejected the restoration application dated 01.12.2014 filed by petitioners and affirmed the order dated 23.02.1990 passed on the basis of Pa Ka 11 as well as subsequent order dated 20.11.2014 and 25.08.2014 hence this writ petition for quashing the order dated 09.03.2023 passed by respondent No.4.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that rejection of the petitioners' restoration application on the ground of limitation is wholly illegal. He further submitted that mutation case should be decided on merit in place of technical ground. He further submitted that contesting respondents are not entitled to be recorded in place of deceased recorded tenure holder Guran. He further submitted that petitioners were rightly filed their claim for mutation on the basis of succession, but the case of the petitioners has not been examined on merit in accordance with law rather the restoration application filed by petitioners has been rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that contesting respondents have already filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act and another proceeding initiated by contesting responde