Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43978 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 699 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hari Kishan And 11 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakkhi Chand Tyagi,Shiv Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to respondent no. 3 is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that an application for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was preferred by petitioners wherein respondent no. 3, filed objections. Mutation application was allowed by means of order dated 10.02.2025 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Sampurna Nagar, District - Kheri. Aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2025, respondent no. 3 preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist Board of revenue issued notice and summoned lower Court's record and admitted the said revision and fixed 20.08.2025 as next date for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners have been made opposite parties in the said revision and on the date fixed their counsel was present in the Court and also filed vakalatnama on 14.05.2025. It is submitted that the matter was taken up on 21.05.2025, but the case was adjourned due to bycott by the the local Bar Association and next date fixed was 30.05.2025, on which date impugned order was passed. 5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the fact that he has made oral submissions before the Board of Revenue, which were not considered and the revision has been admitted. In the aforesaid circumstances, he submits that revision was not maintainable and the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that neither in the petition filed before this Court nor in the supplementary affidavit filed today, there is any averment that petitioners have filed objections before the Board of Revenue regarding maintainability of the revision. It is submitted that no documents were filed by the petitioners including the death certificate which has been stated by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue would have duly considered the arguments and claim, only whey they were supported by evidence and material on record and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings are pending and it is open for the petitioners to raise all their arguments and adduce evidence in the pending revisional proceedings. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. After considering rival submissions, it is noticed that only order for admission and issuance of notice has been assailed before this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that their counsel has put in appearance on their behalf, then it was not open for the Board of revenue to have issued notices, but we would hasten to add that mere issuance of notice would not be fatal, so as to call for interference by this Court in writ proceedings. It is noticed that nine persons were made opposite parties in the said revision and counsel for the petitioners has filed vakalatnama on behalf of eight persons while according to him opposite party no. 5 - Bhadu S/o Rona has died. It is further admitted that their counsel has orally informed the Board of Revenue regarding death of Bhadu, but did not filed any document with regard to his death. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue. It is open for the petitioners to file all the documents pertaining to deceased "Bhadu" before the Board of Revenue so that either substitution or notices are deemed to be effected on all the opposite parties and appropriate orders are passed by the Bord of Revenue in this regard. 10. In absence of any pleadings filed before the Board of Revenue, this Court does not find any ground for defect or illegality in the impugned order, with regard to not taking cognizance of oral submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition is dismissed. 12. However, it is open for the petitioners to file all the documents before the Board of Revenue. After filing the documents, the Board of Revenue would pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench