JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Under challenge are two orders dated 10.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the initial order of mutation dated 07.12.2016 has been recalled. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said order of recall preferred a revision which has also been dismissed by means of an order dated 25.01.2022. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner on the basis of the sale-deed dated 19.05.1981 had applied for mutation. The said mutation proceedings culminated in the order dated 07.12.2016 whereby the name of the petitioner came to be recorded. Thereafter, the private respondent no. 3 moved an application for recall and the said application has been allowed by means of the order dated 10.12.2021. The revision against the said order has been dismissed. It is urged that the two authorities have not considered the fact that the application was moved despite the fact that all the conditions as enumerated in the U.P. Revenue Court Manual have been complied with. It is also urged that there was no occasion for recall of the said order and even the entry in the Khatauni which has been made is also not in accordance with the Paragraph 39 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual. It is in the aforesaid backdrop it is submitted that the the orders impugned are bad and liable to be set-aside. 4. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 10.12.2021 which indicates that in respect of the sale-deed in question which is the basis of title of the petitioner a civil suit has already been instituted and pending before the competent Civil Court in District Ballia. 5. It is also urged that initially the application for interim injunction came to be rejected against which the private respondent preferred appeal wherein by means of the order dated 04.12.2019 the District Judge, Ballia has allowed the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo and also restrained the parties to create any third party right or alienate the property in question. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No. 8. 6. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No. 8. 6. It is also submitted that in so far as the private respondent is concerned on the basis of sale-deed executed by the original tenure holder the name of the private respondent had already been mutated on 06.05.2015, however, this aspect has not been considered and at the behest of the petitioner the mutation order in his favour was passed on 07.12.2016. It is further urged that the respondent no. 2 while allowing the application for recall has specifically noticed that the sale-deed in question is under the cloud inasmuch as an FIR has been lodged and a three member Special Investigation Team has been constituted where it revealed that a large number of sale-deeds were fraudulently executed and registered which also includes the sale-deed which is the basis of the title of the petitioner. Thus, considering the aforesaid fact, the order of recall has been passed. It cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner whereas he always has right to contest the same on merits. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also noticing the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendera Singh vs. State of M.P. and Others; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802 it is not in dispute that the civil proceedings are being contested by the parties where the Court has also passed a restraint order to maintain status quo. In so far as the validity of the sale-deed is concerned, the same is subject matter of the civil suit where the parties are contesting their rights. In so far as the impugned orders in the writ petition are concerned, they only recall the initial order of mutation dated 07.12.2016 which is yet to be contested on merits by the parties. It is also not disputed that the order dated 07.12.2016 was passed ex-parte and admittedly no notice was issued to the private respondent no. 3 whereas his name was duly recorded by means of the order dated 06.05.2015 i.e., prior to the order dated 07.12.2016. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that there is any error in the orders passed by the two authorities and there is no scope of interference in the impugned orders in this petition. 9. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that there is any error in the orders passed by the two authorities and there is no scope of interference in the impugned orders in this petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.