Case called out in the revised list.

2. None appears for the respondent, although Sri S.C. Bhatt, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama. His name is also shown in the cause list.

3. Order dated 20.10.2009 also shows that none was present for respondent on 20.10.2009 too. Hence, this court has no option except to proceed in absence of counsel for the respondent.

4. Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2004 passed by learned Board of Revenue, U.P. thereby accepting the recommendations made by ADM, Saharanpur for settling aside the order dated 06.05.1988 of Tehsildar, Roorkee by which learned Tehsildar recalled the ex parte proceedings order on the payment of Rs. 20/- as costs and opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner.

5. Brief facts of the case inter alia are that on the death of one Mr. Surja respondent – Samay Singh moved an application for mutation before learned Tehsildar, Roorkee on the basis of alleged WILL dated 18.06.1975. Learned Tehsildar at the first stage allowed the mutation application vide judgment dated 14.03.1983 observing WILL as a genuine document. Feeling ag