several opportunities being offered, he could not produce any evidence in support of his claim. Against the order dated 6.11.1995, the father of the petitioner preferred appeal but the same also came to be rejected and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner. It appears that after the death of his father, the petitioner re-initiated some proceedings for mutation of his name over the land in question and filed a writ petition bearing Writ Tax No. 644 of 2014 which was disposed of with a direction on 7.11.2014 that the petitioner's application shall be disposed of expeditiously. It is in pursuance of this order, the Nagar Nigam Varanasi proceeded to pass final order and the Municipal Commissioner vide order dated 13.4.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner for mutation of his name. It appears that while the said matter was pending and the writ petition was filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-C No. 23441 of 2015 but since the petitioner's application had already been rejected, this Court left it open to the petitioner to pursue such remedy as may be available under law vide order dated 4.5.2015. After this order was passed and while the petitioner's appeal was pending before the Judge, Small Causes against the order dated 13.4.2015, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 27462 of 2016 which was dismissed by this Court as the Court declined to interfere in the matter vide order dated 6.1.2016. All these documents have not been referred to any paragraph of the writ petition and thus the petitioner had deliberately avoid to file them. From a perusal of the record, we find that the petitioner reinitiated the proceedings of mutation after the death of his father concealing the material fact that the application of his father had already been rejected as neither in the order of Municipal Commissioner dated 31st May, 2016 there is any such mention of the order of 1995 nor in the order passed by the Judge, Small Cause there is any reference to the earlier proceedings. It is one of those cases where we find that a deliberate attempt has been made to commit abuse of process of law in Court. According to the petitioner's own admission he is seeking succession from his father in respect of the property in question over which he wants his name to be mutated. The petitioner's father's claim came to be rejected by the Nagar Nigam on 6.11.1995 which got confirmed in appeal and there is no dispute about this fact that this order passed by the appellate authority neither the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner ever challenged, therefore, all the mutation claimed by the petitioner's father in respect of the land in question came to be sealed. In such circumstances, therefore, unless the petitioner had challenged the order of the year 1995, he could not have set up an independent claim of mutation of his name in respect of the land in question for the first time in the year 2014. The petitioner's father, if did not have right to the property by getting his name recorded, the petitioner's claim as successor could not have better right. The appropriate course for the petitioner was to file a regular civil suit seeking declaratory right in respect of the land in question and also declaratory injunction, if he is so aggrieved by any action of the Nagar Nigam which create interference with his possession but having not done so the petitioner's right for mutation cannot be perfected. The land continues to be recorded as Banjar and the petitioner has not been able to produce any document on record to show that he was an allottee of said land. In such view of the matter, therefore, we do not find any fault with the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Municipal Commissioner Varanasi. Since the land record shows clearly that the land is recorded as Banjar and the petitioner has not been able to establish his claim by showing any document of lease etc. ever executed by the Nagar Nigam or previous owners of the land may be, Gaon Sabha, the finding written by the Judge, Small Cause Court is
