JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Hari Om Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Mohan, for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Naib Tahsildar, dated 24.03.2014 and Additional Commissioner dated 18.03.2015, passed in proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Mahmood Khan (respondent-3) filed an application (registered as Case No. 580/ 1565) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutation of his name over plots 341-Aa (area 0.02 acre), 341-Ba (area 0.10 acre) and 731 (area 1.34 acre) of village Deoria Alawal, tahsil and district Gonda, on the basis of sale deed dated 14.08.1984, allegedly executed by Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu, who was its recorded tenure holder. Initially the case was dismissed by order dated 07.09.2007, for want of evidence. Mahmood Khan filed an application dated 03.11.2007 for recall of the order dated 07.09.2007. 4. Jalaluddin and others (now represented by the petitioners) filed their objection dated 02.01.2008 in the recall application. The petitioners stated that Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu did not execute sale deed dated 14.08.1984, rather it was obtained through some imposter of Smt. Dhanpatta. On coming to know about sale deed dated 14.08.1984, Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu filed a suit (registered as Regular Suit No. 785 of 1987) for cancellation of the sale deed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda. Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu executed a sale deed dated 01.08.1985 of plot 731 (area 1.34 acre) in favour of Ram Lakhan and Holi sons of Sunder and Ram Bachan son of Brij Lal. On the basis of sale deed dated 01.08.1985, their names were mutated over plot 731 on 31.10.1985. Thereafter, Ram Lakhan died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Dhanpatta and her name was mutated by order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.11.1991, on the basis of report PA-11-A. Ram Bachan also died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Gangajali. Holi also died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Kunna. The names of aforesaid ladies were also mutated by Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of report PA-11-A. The predecessors of the petitioners purchased 1/3rd share Smt. Gangajali through sale deed dated 03.09.1993 and their names were mutated by order dated 13.01.1994. Holi also died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Kunna. The names of aforesaid ladies were also mutated by Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of report PA-11-A. The predecessors of the petitioners purchased 1/3rd share Smt. Gangajali through sale deed dated 03.09.1993 and their names were mutated by order dated 13.01.1994. Smt. Dhanpatta widow of Sunder executed sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share in favour of Jamaluddin, Kamaluddin and Sirajuddin. Smt. Kunna widow of Holi executed sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share in favour of Smt. Tarawati and the names of transferees were also mutated. Sale deed dated 14.08.1984 was never acted upon nor possession was transferred to respondent-3 as such his name was not liable to be mutated on its basis. 5. Mahboob Khan also filed applications for recall of mutation orders mutating the names of transferees of Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu as well as transferees of Dhanpatta widow of Sunder, Gangajali widow of Ram Bachan and Smt. Kunna widow of Holi. Naib Tahsildar consolidated all the cases and by order dated 27.01.2012 held that Regular Suit No. 785 of 1987 filed by Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu was dismissed in default by order dated 12.11.1998. From questionnaire issued on 14.12.2010, it was proved that no application was filed for recall of the aforesaid order till that date. As Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu has already sold the land in dispute through sale deed dated 14.08.1984 as such her subsequent sale deed dated 01.08.1985 was null and void and on its basis the transferees would not get any right over the land in dispute. On these findings, he allowed the application of respondent-3, directed for mutation of his name over the land in dispute and rejected objection of the petitioners. 6. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 27.01.2012, on the ground that arguments were heard only in recall application but muation application of respondent-3 has been illegally allowed. Naib Tahsildar, by order dated 24.03.2014 rejected the recall application of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1342) against aforesaid orders. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by his order dated 18.03.2015 affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. Naib Tahsildar, by order dated 24.03.2014 rejected the recall application of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1342) against aforesaid orders. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner, who by his order dated 18.03.2015 affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu had not executed sale deed dated 14.08.1984, rather it was obtained through her imposter. On coming to know about sale deed dated 14.08.1984, Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu filed a suit (registered as Regular Suit No. 785 of 1987) for its cancellation in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda. The suit was dismissed in default by order dated 12.11.1998. Thereafter an application under Order IX Rule 4 C.P.C. (registered as Misc. Case No. 100 of 1998) was filed for recalling order dated 12.11.1998, which was dismissed in default on 04.07.2008. Smt. Kunna has filed an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 2003) for recall of the orders dated 04.07.2008 and 12.11.1998, which is pending. Sale deed dated 14.08.1984 was never acted upon nor possession was transferred to respondent-3 as such his name was not liable to be mutated on its basis. Mutation application, itself was filed after expiry of more than 12 years. Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu executed a sale deed dated 01.08.1985 of plot 731 (area 1.34 acre) in favour of Ram Lakhan and Holi sons of Sunder and Ram Bachan son of Brij Lal. On the basis of sale deed dated 01.08.1985, their names were mutated over plot 731 on 31.10.1985. Thereafter, Ram Lakhan died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Dhanpatta and her name was mutated by order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 28.11.1991, on the basis of report PA-11-A. Ram Bachan also died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Gangajali. Holi also died and was inherited by his widow Smt. Kunna. The names of aforesaid ladies were also mutated by Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of report PA-11-A. The predecessors of the petitioners purchased 1/3rd share Smt. Gangajali through sale deed dated 03.09.1993 and their names were mutated by order dated 13.01.1994. Smt. Dhanpatta widow of Sunder executed sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share in favour of Jamaluddin, Kamaluddin and Sirajuddin. Smt. Dhanpatta widow of Sunder executed sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share in favour of Jamaluddin, Kamaluddin and Sirajuddin. Smt. Kunna widow of Holi executed sale deed in respect of her 1/3rd share in favour of Smt. Tarawati and the names of transferees were also mutated. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Impugned orders are passed in mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. In view of Section 40-A, the petitioners have remedy of suit to establish their title and possession over the land in dispute. Admittedly sale deed dated 14.08.1984 is a registered document. Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu filed suit i.e. Regular Suit No. 785 of 1987 for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.08.1984, which was at present dismissed. As such in exercise of writ jurisdiction, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as at present sale deed dated 14.08.1984 and decree dated 12.11.1998 are in existence and cannot be ignored by this Court. The petitioners are subsequent transferees as such the findings that after selling the land in dispute Smt. Dhanpatta wife of Mitthu has no right to execute sale deed dated 01.08.1985 does not suffer from any error. It is only when sale deed dated 14.08.1984 is canceled by Civil Court then the petitioners will be entitled to get their names mutated. 9. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed at this stage, with aforesaid observation.