ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision 2609-I/16.

3 W.P. No. 2110/2017 2. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is son of Late Nanhelal whereas petitioner No. 2 is the widow of Late Nanhelal. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of Nanhelal who was blessed with two children i.e., one daughter, who expired and petitioner No. 1 is the surviving child. Since, Late Nanhelal was an educated person, therefore, he entered in the service of police department and remained posted at various places during his service period but the petitioners stayed back in their native house at Village Badaghat. In the year 2013, Late Nanhelal was posted as Additional S.P. at Sagar. However, on 20.03.2013 he expired due to Heart Attack. The petitioners applied for mutation before the Court of Tehsildar, Baldeogarh but the said application was objected by respondents No. 1 to 6. In that proceedings report was submitted that Nanhelal had two wifes namely Ramkali Ahirwar and Smt. Vijaya. Ramkali/petitioner No. 2 was blessed with petitioner No.1 and whereas other wife Smt. Vijaya have five daughters. Khasra No. 23/1, admeasuring 1.643 hectares was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Late Nanhe Bhaiya.

Notices were also issued to the general public. The respondent No. 1 filed an objection to the effect that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Nanhelal and she has been blessed with five children and, therefore, she is entitled for the entire property.

3. The Tehsildar after recording the evidence of the witnesses and considering the written arguments gave a finding to the effect that respondent No. 1 has not given any evidence to show that marriage of Late Nanhelal with petitioner No. 2 was severed accordingly the objection filed by respondent No. 1 was overruled. Accordingly, by order dated 05.07.2016 it was directed that the names of petitioners as well as the names of respondents be jointly recorded in the revenue 4 W.P. No. 2110/2017 records including respondent No. 1. It appears that respondents filed a revision directly before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No. 2609-I/16 which has been allowed by order dated 27.09.2016 and Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 05.07.2016 passed by Tehsidar Baldeogarh and has directed for mutation of names of respondents No. 1 to 6. 4. Challenging the order passed by Board of Revenue, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioner No. 1 is the son of Late Nanhelal and petitioner No. 2 is the wife of Late Nanhelal, therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar for recording the name of petitioners in the revenue records along with respondents was perfectly in accordance with law and accordingly, it is prayed that the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 2609-I/16 be set aside. 5. The respondents No. 1 to 6 has supported the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Board of Revenue in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that in the driving licence of petitioner No. 1, his father’s name has been mentioned as D.R. Ahirwar and not Nanhelal. Since, it was the case of petitioner No. 2 that petitioner No. 1 is her son, therefore, it was also held that it appears that petitioner No. 2 is the wife of D.R. Ahirwar and not Nanhelal. On the contrary it has also been held that from the documents filed by respondents it is clear that respondents were the nominees of Late Nanhelal as per his service record and similarly, respondent No. 1 has been given appointment on compassionate ground after the death of Nanhelal. It was also held that petitioners have not filed any document to show that they are in any manner related to Nanh