Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3316 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ali Dad Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- Zareen Begum And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Imran Khan,M J Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- Akshaya Kumar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to make correction in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.
Sri Mithlesh Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Akshaya Kumar has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
The present petition arises out a proceeding of mutation under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act. The mutation order has been passed on the basis of Will executed by the recorded tenure holder. The petitioners and respondents are claiming their rights through the recorded tenure holder.
It appears that from the total area of the land recorded in the name of the tenure holder, half has been bequeathed in favour of her three daughters by registered Will.
The revenue authorities had proceeded to pass mutation order looking to the fact that the will has not been challenged before any court of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order impugned on the ground that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the marginal witnesses of the Will were not produced to prove the same and, moreover, this was not a self acquired property of the recorded tenure holder. She could not have bequeathed the same by executing the Will.
On the questions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the parties would be required to lead evidence and appreciation of evidence can only be made in a regular suit.
Even otherwise, it is well settled that the mutation proceeding are summary in nature and would not confer right or title in favour of any person. The dispute being raised in the present petition pertains to title dispute. It would be appropriate that the petitioners may approach the competent Court of law by filing a regular suit. The Division bench of this Court in the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue,U.P., Lucknow and Others, 2002 (20) LCD 115 has held that the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not oridinarily interfere in the matter arising out of summary proceeding under the Land Revenue Act.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
It goes without saying that any observation made by the revenue authorities in the summary proceeding would not come in the way of the petitioner in any of the regular proceeding initiated by them.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Himanshu