Krishna Murari, J.: - In view of the office report dated 15.2.1996 and 16.12.2009, service of notice on respondent No. 4 is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. This petition arises out of proceed­ings of suit filed by the petitioner under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Aboli­tion and Land Reforms Act. The suit was filed seeking declaration of his rights and mutation of his name on the basis of sale deed dated 12.8.1971, said to have been executed in his favour by the recorded ten­ure holder. All the three Courts have dis­missed the suit of the petitioner only on the ground that sale deed is of 1971 and the suit was filed on 29.1.1991. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after execution of the sale deed, the name of the petitioner came to be recorded in the reve­nue record and it was only when the re­spondent No. 4, who is grandson of the vendor of the petitioner, by playing fraud got mutation of his name after expunction of the name of the petitioner and the suit was filed after the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that respondent No. 4 has himself moved an application before the Trial Court stating that the property was sold by his grand-father, he has no concern with the same and he has no objection in decree­ing the suit of the petitioner. 5. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the suit was never contested by the respondent No. 4. The reasoning given by three Courts in dismissing the suit is fallacious in as much as the suit was im­mediately filed when the fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner that his name has wrongly and illegally been deleted from the record. 6. In view of the above facts and dis­cussions, the impugned order dated 4.1.1994 passed by the Trial Court, the or­der dated 28.7.1994 passed by the lower appellate Court as well as the order dated 29.3.1996 passed in second appeal cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The suit filed by the petitioner stands decreed. The writ petition stands allowed. 6. In view of the above facts and dis­cussions, the impugned order dated 4.1.1994 passed by the Trial Court, the or­der dated 28.7.1994 passed by the lower appellate Court as well as the order dated 29.3.1996 passed in second appeal cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The suit filed by the petitioner stands decreed. The writ petition stands allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.