The court emphasized the importance of giving parties an opportunity to be heard before making decisions in mutation proceedings and upheld the principle that previous sale deeds should prevail over subsequent ones.

Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J. : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief :-

(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-12-1996 passed by Additional Collector Dehradun in Appeal No. 50 of 1993-94.

(b) Issue any writ. order or direction which this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(C) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the respondent No.2 moved an application before the Assistant Record Officer Dehradun under Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 read with Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act alleging there therein that the respondent no. 2 had purchased the disputed property bearing plot No. 40/1. measuring 0-18 Acre through different sale deeds in the year 1981 from Pawan Indra Singh and Jogi Arul1 Singh. both sons of Ravindra Singh. The disputed property consisted of one house and two shops. The respondent no. 2 prayed for mutation of his name on the basis of sale deed in the revenue records.

3. Notices were issued. Some persons including the petitioner Kehar Singh and Bagel Singh, sons of Atma Singh and Daya Singh son of Dayal Singh filed separate objections. In their objection, the petitioner and his brother alleged that the land sought to be mutated in the name of respondent no.2 had already been sold by the father of Pawan Indra Singh namely late Ravindra Singh in his life time on 274-1974 in favour of their father. late Atma Singh and they had been in possession of the land from the date of sale till August 1979. It is also alleged that over the disputed land, there exists house of the objectors, which was constructed by their father after purchase of the land. It is also alleged that the respondent no. 2 Manohar Singh possessed more than 12.5 Acres of land, therefore, legally the name of respondent no.2 cannot be mutated in the revenl1e record.

4. The respondent no. 2 filed his reply before the Assistant Record Officer alleging that the mother of the applicant, Ratan Kaur had executed ct will in favour of Jasbeer Singh and Indrajeet Singh and on the strength of the will. the said land devolved on Jasbeer Singh and Indrajeet Singh and their names have already been mutated in the revenue records. It was also alleged that the total land including the purchased land of 0-18 acre in possession of the applicant comes to 11-91 acre.

5. Before the Assistant Record Officer (ARO.), all the parties filed documentary evidence including registered sale deeds and extract of Khatauni. The ARO. recorded the evidence of the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence, the A.R.O. came to the conclusion that the applicantrespondentno.2 was having land more than 12-50 acres and there is violation of provisions of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act The objection of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that no application for mutation has been made. The A.R.O. has by order dated 2-12-1993 directed that the disputed land of plot No. 40/1 area 0-18 acre of village Deswala. Pargana' Parwadoon be vested in the State Government under Sections 1661167 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R Act.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the A.R.O., the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Record Officer Dehradun, which was registered as Appeal No. 50/93-94, Manohar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others.

7. Before the Record Officer the petitioner moved an application dated 22-31995 for his impleadment (Annexure-3 to the petition) alleging therein that the applicant-petitioner is a necessary party to the proceeding but the appellant has not arrayed the petitioner as party to the appeal. He therefore prayed that the petitioner be impleaded as party to the appeal and opportunity of hearing may be given to him.

8. It appears that th