1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 3.2.2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue, Gwalior setting aside the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, by which he had remitted the matter back for passing fresh orders after hearing the petitioner.

2. The brief facts, leading to the tiling of the present petition, are that Khasra Nos. 430, 826 to 829, 847 to 857 totalling an area of 3.67 hectares and Khasra Nos. 366, 1045 and 1105 area 4.61 hectares initially stood in the name of two brothers Rajendra Kumar and Ram Swaroop. Rajendra Kumar died issueless in the year 1992 and thereafter the name of his brother Ram Swaroop continued to be recoded in the revenue records. Ram Swaroop died issueless on 4.10.2006 and therafter respondent No.2 being the sole surviving relative of deceased Ram Swaroop being the son of his aunt filed an application on 5.10.2006 for mutation of his name in the revenue records under Sections 109 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The application was taken on record and a proclamation was issued inviting objections from all interested persons in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 110 of the Code. As no objections were received the Superintendent, Land Records, Chattarpur recorded allowed the statement of respondent No.2 and his witnesses and thereafter allowed the application for mutation filed by respondent No.2 by order dated 16.11.2006.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Superintendent, Land Records, Chattarpur dated 16.11.2006 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Chattarpur which was dismissed by the Additional Collector by order dated 31.8.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Commissioner, Sagar Division, by filing a Second Appeal and the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar by order dated 12.10.2007 remitted the matter back to the Superintendent, Land Records for passing fresh orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who claimed himself to be the owner of the property on the basis of a 'Will' executed by deceased Ram Swaroop on 4.10.2006.

4. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar dated 12.10.2007 approached the Board of Revenue and the Board by the impugned order dated 3.2.2009 has set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagai Division, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has a validly executed 'Will' in his favour executed by the deceased Ram Swaroop on 4.10.2006 in respect of half of the total property which was also duly registered after the death of Ram Swaroop on 14.11.2006 and in such circumstances the petitioner was required to be heard by the concerned authority before passing the orders allowing the application for mutation filed by respondent No.2 and in such circumstances the impugned order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division remitting the matter back to the authority for passing fresh orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside as the authority was and is required to hear the petitioner before passing any orders on the application for mutation filed for respondent No.2.

6. From a perusal of the petition as well as the document on record it is clear that respondent No.2 filed an application for mutation of his name on 5.10.2006 on the basis of which a proclamation was issued by the Superintendent, Land Records which fact has been affirmed by all the Courts after perusing the record of the authority. It is also clear that the petitioner did not file any objection pursuant to the proclamation