Rakesh Sharma, J;- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner Gur Nanak Vidyak Sabha, Lakhimpur, Kheri, a registered organisation has assailed the order dated 30.12.2002 passed by the Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and the order dated 19.7.1993 passed by the S.D.M., Lakhimpur Kheri so far as it is against the interest of the petitioner, a registered organisation. In addition to this, the order dated 28.9.1992 passed by Naib Tehsildar Bhoor, Shri Nagar, Lakhimpur and the order dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Lakhimpur Kheri have also been assailed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute in question relates to plots No.1580, 1590. 1591, total area 1.73 acre of village city Lakhimpur Pargana Kheri, district Kheri. Property in question was under the Mahewa Estate of Lkhimpurkheri and Smt. Moola was Maursi Kashtkar of this property. The Estate has undergone the receiver in furtherance of an order passed by the civil court. Smt. Moola surrendered the property including possession to the Receiver of Mahewa Estate. 4. On 10.10.58 Patta was executed by the Receiver of Mahewa Estate to the petitioner Gur Nanak Vidyak Sabha, Lakhimpur, Kheri. Building rights were provided to the petitioner. After approval sought from Civil Judge, a Patta was registered in favour of the petitioner on 28.1.1961 with power to construct building and since then land was not used for the purpose of agriculture. There exists buildings on the plots in dispute. In revenue records, the name of Smt. Moola continued to exist inspite her surrender and patta to the petitioner. A Govt. notification was issued on 6.6.1963 that no renewal is required from Mahewa Estate. On 23.5.1979, a declaratory suit No.109 of 1977 was filed in the court of Munsif, Lakhimppur. The suit was decided exparte and the petitioner was declared lessee alongwith right to make construction and Smt. Moola was declared having no title over property in question. The judgment and order dated 23.5.79 passed by Munsif, Kheri has remained unchallenged. It is still in vogue. 5. Smt. Moola had ceased to have any relation with the property. The suit was decided exparte and the petitioner was declared lessee alongwith right to make construction and Smt. Moola was declared having no title over property in question. The judgment and order dated 23.5.79 passed by Munsif, Kheri has remained unchallenged. It is still in vogue. 5. Smt. Moola had ceased to have any relation with the property. The opposite party No.6 moved an application before Naib Tahsildar, Lakhimpur seeking mutation of his name on the basis of an unregistered will dated 14.3.1987 executed by Smt. Moola and order was passed for entering the name of opposite party No.6 Ram Chandra Shah in the Revenue Records. 6. The petitioner came to know about the order passed by Naib Tahsildar. On 10.12.1991, an application for recall of the said order passed by Naib Tahsildar was filed under section 201 of Land Revenue Act and in para 6 thereof it has been stated that the petitioner had possession over the property in question. It was brought to the notice of the Naib Tahsildar that Smt. Moola or the opposite party No.6 had no connection with the property of the case as decided by Munsif vide judgement and decree dated 23.5.79. Naib Tehsildar rejected the application for recall on 28.9.92. 7. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 28.9.92 before S.D.O., Lakhimpur Kheri u/s 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act who had dismissed the appeal and also held that will was forged, vested the property in State. The petitioner is an Educational Body and was having buildings over the land. Petitioner and opposite party No.6 filed revisions before Commissioner under section 218 of Land Revenue Act and filed 30 documents. The Commissioner allowed the revision on the ground that there is an order of the competent Civil Court as entry should have been made in favour of the petitioner and reference was made to the Board of Revenue. Time was given to file objection before Board of Revenue. On 30.12.2002, the Board of Revenue had rejected reference of the petitioner and accepted reference of opposite party No.6 and order passed by S.D.O. was set aside and order passed by Naib Tahsildar was restored. It was further held on presumption that Commissioner has decided the title under summary proceedings. 8. The Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue ought to have confirmed the recommendations sent by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. It was further held on presumption that Commissioner has decided the title under summary proceedings. 8. The Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue ought to have confirmed the recommendations sent by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. In the Present case the opposite party No.6 had not filed any objection to the aforesaid recommendations of remand. The Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration the documentary evidence ( 30 documents) which were placed on record. In fact no rebuttal was filed on behalf of opposite party No.6. His case was based on an unregistered will which was not proved before the lower revenue court. The Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has committed mistake in travelling beyond the scope of section 201 of Land Revenue Act which clearly provides rehearing on proof of good cause for non-appearance on the date of the passing of the exparte order. The petitioner's application under section 201 under U.P. Land Revenue Act was within time. Several causes were shown for non-appearance. The petitioner's name was recorded over the disputed land in Kabuliyat dated 2.9.58 and Patta dated 10.10.58. The civil courts decree regarding title cannot be ignored by the revenue courts. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and other [ 2002(46) ALR 564], Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India and others 2003(1) AWC 505 in support of his submission. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.6 to oppose the writ petition. Opposite party No.6 has submitted that the will deed was executed by Smt. Moola and on the basis of this will deed, the name of Ram Chandra Shah was recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner who claims to be allottee of Patta has filed a time barred application seeking recall of the order passed by the mutation court, i.e., Naib Tehsildar. There is no provision for mutation under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of alleged Patta. The petitioner has no right to set up a claim on the basis of alleged Patta said to be executed on 10.10.1958. The petitioner in fact had no relation with the summary proceedings of mutation. There is no provision for mutation under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the basis of alleged Patta. The petitioner has no right to set up a claim on the basis of alleged Patta said to be executed on 10.10.1958. The petitioner in fact had no relation with the summary proceedings of mutation. As far as the order and decree dated 23.5.79 of the civil court is concerned, neither Smt. Moola nor the opposite party No.6 had any knowledge about this judgment and order. The order dated 23.5.79 appears to be an exparte order. However, no challenge to it was made by the petitioner. 11. According to the opposite party No.6, the disputed land is an agricultural land and it was not declared as Abadi land. Learned Naib Tehsildar had rightly issued a proclamation in the light of the relevant provisions of U.P. Z.A.L.R. Act and U.P. Land Revenue Act. As a matter of fact learned SDM had passed an illegal order by which land in dispute was vested in Gaon Sabha. This order has rightly been set aside by the Board of Revenue on 30.12.2002. The right of the petitioner claimed on the basis of Patta which was granted by the Mahewa estate could not be decided in summary proceeding. The opposite party No.6 had pleaded his case before the learned Addl. Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The impugned orders are unassailable. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 13. The petitioner has placed a large number of documents, that is, 37 in number to strengthen his case. The copies of Kabuliyat, Patta dated 10.10.58, Government Order dated 20.6.63 and the other documents are on record to show the history of acquisition of land by the petitioner organisation. Smt. Moola had already surrendered her land to the receiver for managing the land in dispute. After accepting the surrender of land, the receiver had granted Patta to the petitioner. When Moola's name still continued in the revenue record, the petitioner had no option left except to file a declaratory suit in the competent civil court. Accordingly a civil suit No.109 of 1977 was filed. Notices were issued to Smt. Moola whose land was latter on allotted to the petitioner, i.e., Gur Nanak Vidyak Sabha, Lakhimpur, Kheri. When Moola's name still continued in the revenue record, the petitioner had no option left except to file a declaratory suit in the competent civil court. Accordingly a civil suit No.109 of 1977 was filed. Notices were issued to Smt. Moola whose land was latter on allotted to the petitioner, i.e., Gur Nanak Vidyak Sabha, Lakhimpur, Kheri. It has also been brought on record that a receiver was appointed in furtherance of the orders passed by the court for management of the above said estate. In the relevant years i.e. 1959 & 1960, the receiver had powers to manage the affairs of the estate including the land in dispute. It is also borne out of record that proper permission was obtained from Civil Judge before providing building rights, lease deed, Patta to the petitioner. Sri Sunder Singh was Secretary of the petitioner organisation at the relevant time. Patta was dully registered on 30.1.61. It appears that opposite party No.6 taking advantage of incorrect illegal entries still continuing in the village record got a forged will fabricated after death of Smt. Moola before 1987. On the basis of this will he got his name entered in the revenue records. No proper procedure was followed by the Tehsildar before entering name of opposite party No.6. Interestingly the S.D.O. took note of this fact, scrutinised the validity of the will deed and had found it incredible. Due to this reason, he had ordered the land to be mutated in the name of Gaon Sabha. The will was not found genuine. It appears to have been fabricated much after death of Smt. Moola. 14. In addition to the findings of the SDO, Munsif Kheri had also decreed the suit No.109 of 1977 on 23.5.79. Admittedly this judgment and order remained unchallenged since 23.5.79. More than 30 years have now passed. The petitioner is armed with the declaration of the civil court. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession over the land since 1961 for more than 48 years. The Patta was executed after obtaining permission from the civil court. Building rights were allowed to the petitioner organisation. They had raised construction over the land in dispute. The petitioner is armed with the declaration of the civil court. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession over the land since 1961 for more than 48 years. The Patta was executed after obtaining permission from the civil court. Building rights were allowed to the petitioner organisation. They had raised construction over the land in dispute. Smt. Moola from whom, the opposite party No.6 Ram Chandra Shah claims to have obtained a will has severed connection with the land after surrendering it to the receiver in the year 1960-61 long before executing the alleged will. In view of this factual matrix where an unchallenged decree of the civil court is available in favour of the petitioner, no other inference can be drawn. Moreover, the petitioner has placed 30 unrebutted documents before the Addl. Commissioner on the basis of which detailed findings and conclusions were recorded by the Addl. Commissioner in favour of the petitioner. The details of the documents have been given in para 14 of the writ petition. Ram Chandra Shah, opposite party No.6 in his counter affidavit has not denied the existence of these 30 documents. He has failed to rebut these documents before the Addl. Commissioner, Board of Revenue and in this Court. The record relating to mutation maintained by Nagar Palika, Lakhimpur Kheri also demonstrates that Ram Chandra Shah had no connection with Smt. Moola's family. In the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli, Smt. Moola has been shown as Marausi Kashtakar recorded in Ziman-4. The revenue record keeper had reported that no Khata from 1366 Fasli to 1368 Fasli was recorded in favour of Smt. Moola. The Commissioner's report in suit No.172 of 1991 proves existence of an house, constructions of the petitioner on the land in dispute. The house tax receipts, water charges bill, electricity bills tax receipts, copies of various municipal records demonstrate that Smt. Moola or Ram Chandra Shah had no connection whatsoever with the land in dispute. The findings recorded by the Addl. Commissioner appears to be based on documentary and oral evidence. The Judicial Member, Board of Revenue had not applied its mind to these material documents. It appears that the Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue has excluded from consideration these 30 documents. It ought to have accepted, confirmed the recommendations sent by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 16. Commissioner appears to be based on documentary and oral evidence. The Judicial Member, Board of Revenue had not applied its mind to these material documents. It appears that the Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue has excluded from consideration these 30 documents. It ought to have accepted, confirmed the recommendations sent by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 16. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Ram Chandra Shah had failed to rebut these documents which showed continuous possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute, having real and substantial connection with the land. There is a decree of civil court in his favour and S.D.O., Lakhimpur Kheri had already rejected the alleged will put forth by Sri Ram Chandra Shah said to have been executed by Smt. Moola who had already surrendered the land to the receiver of the Mahewa Estate. Smt. Moola had already died. It appears from the documents placed before the lower court that Smt. Moola had died much before 1987. No notice was published before carrying out the mutation proceedings by the Naib Tehsildar Chetra Bhoor and Naib Tehsildar Lakhirpur Kheri. The order dated 31.10.1991 appears to be unfounded and liable to be quashed. The petitioner's case is covered by the judgements (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The entry in the revenue records is subject to the orders passed by the competent court, as such the revenue authorities are bound to take notice of the decree of the civil court and correct the revenue entries. The revenue authority was bound to carry out the observations and honour the declarations issued by the civil court.. 17. From a perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue, it appears that the Member, Judicial had passed the order on presumption that the Commissioner had decided the dispute regarding title in summary proceedings. The title dispute between the parties, that is, the petitioner and Smt. Moola had already been resolved by the competent civil court through its unchallenged judgment and decree dated 23.5.79. Sri Ram Chandra Shah, opposite party No.6 despite knowledge of the order in the year 1991 never sought any recall of the same. The title dispute between the parties, that is, the petitioner and Smt. Moola had already been resolved by the competent civil court through its unchallenged judgment and decree dated 23.5.79. Sri Ram Chandra Shah, opposite party No.6 despite knowledge of the order in the year 1991 never sought any recall of the same. He had continued to base his claim on the basis of a fabricated will said to be executed by Smt. Moola ( much after the death of the cultivator Smt. Moola who had already surrendered her land). The revenue entries of the relevant year draw an entirely different picture in the present case. The Judicial Member, Board of Revenue ought to have accepted the recommendation submitted by the Addl. Commissioner vide its judgment and order dated 16.1.1997. 18. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.12.2002 passed by the Member, Judicial, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and the order dated 19.7.1993 passed by the S.D.O., Lakhimpur are quashed. The order dated 16.6.79 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow including recommendations recorded by the Addl. Commissioner in its order dated 16.6.1997 are upheld. The concerned Revenue authorities, i.e., respondents No. 2 to 5 are directed to correct the revenue records accordingly. The judgment and decree dated 23.5.79 passed by the Munswif, a copy of which has been placed on record of the writ petition shall be honoured. The name of Ram Chandra Shah, opposite party No.6 shall be expunged from the revenue records. All the necessary consequences shall follow as the writ petition has been allowed by this Court and the reliefs sought have been granted.