JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, initiated by the petitioner claiming on the basis of an alleged un-registered will executed in her favour by the recorded tenure holder on 11.09.1999. Plot no. 1163 (Gha) area 2.165 Hectare of Village Patara, Post Patara, Pargana and Tehsil Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, was recorded in the name of Sri Lal son of Jethu. 3. The application for mutation was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be mutated vide order dated 30.06.2005 by the Tehsildar. 4. Against this order, a restoration application was filed by the respondents on 12.11.2001. The Tehsildar vide order dated 09.01.2002, allowed the restoration application and the mutation case was restored to its original number. 5. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision. The revision filed by petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 23.06.2004 on the ground that the restoration application had been filed by the widow of the recorded tenure holder; no evidence had been filed nor the matter has been decided finally. The revision was accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. 6. Against this order, the petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has also been dismissed. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that a restoration application, has been allowed and the order allowing the restoration application affirmed by the Courts below. 8. The mutation case filed by the petitioner, therefore, stands revived and the petitioner will have every opportunity of making his submissions before the Tehsildar, who will necessarily pass orders after hearing the parties, on the basis of evidence that may be adduced by them. 9. In such view of the matter, there appears no justifiable reason for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.