Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In view of peculiar facts and cir­cumstances of the case and with the con­sent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with­out calling for a counter affidavit. Proceeding under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by the re­spondent No. 3 for mutation of his name on the basis of an alleged Will dated 16.8.2004 said to have been executed by the recorded tenure-holder Smt. Padam Kumari the pe­titioner No. 2 herein. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Padam Kumari is alive and has wrongly been shown to be dead and the alleged Will deed is forged, fictitious and fabricated. Tehsildar after considering the entire evidence and materials brought on record came to the finding that Smt. Padam Kumari is alive and the will deed on the basis of which mutation was being sought by the respondent No. 3 was forged and fictitious, dismissed the proceedings. Re­spondent No. 3 filed a revision against the said order. 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed within 15 days by means of an ex-parte order without any notice and op­portunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner goes to show that even though he has remanded the case back to the Tehsildar but a direction has been is­sued that the witnesses of the Will deed may be examined and thereafter, the order of mutation may be passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order. In the meantime, an order of the Board of Revenue was produced before the Com­missioner rejecting the revision and con­firming the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner on the basis of which the recall application was dismissed by the Commissioner. 5. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said revision was never filed by them rather it was surreptitiously got filed by some imposter and the same was got dis­missed. The petitioner has also moved an application before the Board of Revenue for recall of the said order on the allegation that the revision was not filed by them. 6. It is alleged by the petitioner that the said revision was never filed by them rather it was surreptitiously got filed by some imposter and the same was got dis­missed. The petitioner has also moved an application before the Board of Revenue for recall of the said order on the allegation that the revision was not filed by them. 6. Be that as it may, the whole con­troversy revolves around the fact as to whether Smt. Padam Kumari is alive or not. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceeding pending and the entire dispute would stand settled in case it is decided as to whether Smt. Padam Ku­mari is alive or dead. 7. Learned standing Counsel made a suggestion that the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Padam Kumari may appear in person be­fore the Sub Divisional Officer, Nichalaul, District Maharajganj and after verification if Sub Divisional Officer, Nichalaul finds that Smt. Padam Kumari is alive, the pro­ceedings would automatically stand termi­nated. 8. Sri A.B.Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Padam Kumari shall appear before the authority concerned as and when di­rected by this Court. 9. Learned Counsel for the contest­ing respondents however, maintains that Smt. Padam Kumari is dead. 10. Considering the facts and circum­stances, it is directed that on presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nichalaul, District Maharajganj, he shall fix a date for appear­ance of Smt. Padam Kumari. On appearing her identity shall be duly verified and thereafter, necessary order shall be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 11. It is needless to say that in case Smt. Padam Kumari is found to be alive, the entire proceedings pending either be­fore the Commissioner or before the Board of Revenue shall stand terminated. In case she fails to appear and it is held that she is dead then the proceedings shall stand re­sumed in accordance with the direction passed by the Commissioner vide order dated 13.2.2009 subject to modification that after examining the witnesses of the Will deed, Sub-Divisional Officer, Nichalaul, District Maharajganj shall be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. Subject to aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition Disposed Of.