Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.7, 8, 9 & 10, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Nathu Singh, predecessor of the petitioners, was recorded over plot nos.1246M, 1249, 1256 of khata no.538, total area 8.4270 hect. Sri Nathu Singh has died on 10.1.1968. In place of Nathu Singh, name of petitioners and other family members were recorded on the basis of succession. A suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed in the year 2012 by the legal heirs of one Todi Singh (father of respondent no.7) with the prayer that they may be declared co-sharer of ½ share of the plot in question. The aforementioned suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.5.2016. Against the dismissal of suit, one appeal was filed before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.4.2019 which has attained finality. Respondent No.19/Sanjay moved an application for mutation on 24.6.2016 on the basis of photocopy of the sale deed dated 18.2.1970, alleged to be executed by Sri Nathu Singh in his favour. The aforementioned mutation application was dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 12.4.2018. Other private respondents except respondent no.19 who were plaintiffs of suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act also filed a mutation application dated 18.7.2017 on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 27.2.1968 by Sri Nathu Singh which was registered as Mutation Case No.3143/2018. The Tehsildar vide order dated 24.1.2019 allowed the Mutation Case No.3143/2018. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 1.2.2019, petitioners and other co-sharers filed appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 27.8.2019, setting aside the order dated 24.1.2019, passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order of the S.D.O. dated 27.8.2019, respondent nos.17 and 18 along with their mother Smt. Rajeshwati filed two revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner. The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Additional Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2020. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.3.2020, time barred restoration application was filed which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2022. Against the orders dated 18.3.2020 and 9.11.2022, respondent nos. 7 to 10 filed revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed under the impugned order dated 2.4.2025, setting aside the order of the S.D.O. and the Additional Commissioner as well as matter was sent back before S.D.M. to decide the appeal afresh. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 2.4.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed in Revision No.228/2023, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the Hon'bnle Board of Revenue at Prayagraj"

3. This Cou