Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing of the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue in second revision, inter alia, on the ground that the order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and second revision under Section 219 of U.P Land Revenue Act was not maintainable.
3. Kalicharan S/o Sheetal Prasad executed an unregistered Will deed in favour of opposite party no. 6, Sewa Lal after the death of Kalicharan. Opposite party no. 6 applied for mutation on the basis of unregistered Will deed dated 1.2.1972 and Laxmi Kant, Uma Kant sons of Chandra Bhal filed objection. Thereafter, mutation application of opposite party no. 6 was dismissed in default and subsequently he moved restoration application, whereupon the case was restored and the mutation application of opposite party no. 6 was allowed ex-parte vide order dated 4.5.1992 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the entry of P.A-11 made in favour of petitioners was set aside. Against the aforesaid order, petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 4.5.1993 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 4.5.1992 and directed the parties to appear before the Naib Tehsildar on the date fixed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, opposite party no. 6 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner proceeded to dismiss the revision vide order dated 16.8.1994 Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, opposite party no. 6 preferred a second revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue allowed the revision vide impugned order.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that second revision was not maintainable after the amendment being brought into the statute on 18.8.1997 and, therefore, second revision was not maintainable. The position under law is very clear that after the amendment the second revision is not maintainable. Therefore, the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the second revision and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The order passed by the Board of Revenue in second revision, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue in second revision is hereby set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Naib Tehsildar in accordance with the directions of the Additional Commissioner.