The court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to present his objections in pending revision proceedings, ensuring a fair hearing in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the notices upon the private respondents no. 4 and 5 are dispensed with.

3. The writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 2792 of 2024, Computerized No. AL20240242002792 (Reshma Parveen Vs. Mohd. Jawed and Others) whereby and whereunder the revision against the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the S.D.O., Sirathu, Kaushambi in appeal has been entertained, notice has been issued fixing 22.10.2024 and the operation of the order dated 06.05.2024 has been stayed till the next date of listing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that revision is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The father of the petitioner namely Sarfaraz Ali was the recorded Bhumidhar with transferable rights of Arazi No. 96, area 1.1310 hectares contained in Khata No. 123 (old 112) of village Bihamidpur, Pargana Kara, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi. The petitioner is the only son of his father. Sarfaraz Ali expired on 08.04.2015 leaving behind the petitioner as his only heir and legal representative. The name of the petitioner was mutated over the Khata No. 123 under PA-11 vide order dated 15.04.2015. The respondent no. 4-Mohd. Nazim Ali claiming himself to be son of Late Sarfaraz Ali filed a case under section 34 of the Revenue Code, which case was registered as Case No. 3888 of 2016 for mutating his name in the revenue records. The claim of the respondent no. 4 was based upon fraudulent entry in the family register describing him as son of Late Sarfaraz Ali. The fraudulent entry was corrected on the complaint by the petitioner to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kamalpur, Sirathu, District Kaushambi and a note was made in the family register that the respondent no. 3, his wife and son are not the family members of Late Sarfaraz Ali. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent no. 4 instituted another Case No. 00702 of 2018 Computerized Case No. T-201802420400702 (Mohd. Nazim Ali Vs. Sarfarz Ali) before the Naib Tehsildar (North) Sirathu, Kaushambi, under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and behind the back of the petitioner obtained an order dated 08.08.2018 mutating his name along with that of the petitioner. The petitioner on getting knowledge of the order dated 08.08.2018 sought recall of the same, which was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2018 and the Mutation Case was restored and fixed for hearing. However, the respondent no. 4 on a transfer application moved before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad on an exparte motion got the mutation case transferred from the Court of Naib Tehsildar (North) Sirathu, District Kaushambi to the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Manjhanpur and again by another Transfer Application got the case transferred from the Court of Tehsildar, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi to the Court of the Tehsildar, Tehsil Chail, Kaushambi. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Chail, District Kaushambi vide his order dated 12.08.2021 set aside the order dated 07.09.2018 and maintained the order dated 08.08.2018. All these proceedings were taken behind the back of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 taking advantage of his name being recorded over the Khata has transferred the land in dispute in favour of Noor Mohd. s/o Qutubuddin and Arun Kumar s/o Sita Ram. It is alleged that Arun Kumar has agreed to sell the land in favour of respondent no. 5-Reshma Parveen, however to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner no sale deed has yet been executed in favour of the respondent no. 5.

5. Meanwhile, the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2021 has filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 5000