High Court · 2025

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the records.

4. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private- respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

5. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.07.98 contained as annexure No.3 and order dated 14.10.10 contained as annexure No.4 to this petition."

6. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the writ petition are as under :- "3. That the petitioner belongs to lower strata of Indian society. He is a poor man.

4. That in plot No. 2130 Kha measuring 0-8-7-1/2 (bigha) situate at near Vishal Deep Palace, Pratapgarh Road, Salon, Raebareli is a burial ground-graveyard or qabristan where dead bodies of his ancestral and relatives and others be buried.

5. That in the year 1972 consolidation proceedings concluded. Plot No. 2130 Kha measuring 0-8- 7-1/2 (bigha) was declared "Banjar" as such it became a property of gram samaj which is vested in state.

6. That no occasion arose for the petitioner to approach the consolidation authorities seeking mutation for specific portion as Qabristan.

7. That however when a dead body was sought to be buried in the said graveyard, father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 who has nearby plot No.2130 Ka objected to the burial however due to intervention of the people of locality the burial was allowed.

8. That however apprehending that the the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 is likely to encroach upon the qabristan as such the petitioner moved an application under section 33/39 L.R. Act before the District Magistrate Raebareli and S.D.M. Salon, District Raebareli who called for a report from Tehsildar who after thorough enquiry submitted that the particular portion has sufficient number of grave yards as such that portion of land be mutated as grave yard vide order dated 16.11.89. Copies of report of tehsildar dated 1.12.88 and order dated 16.11.89 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.1 & 2.

9. That the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 who has no concern what so ever with the portion of land filed an appeal before the opposite party No.3 who without application of judicial mind held that as in the consolidation proceeding the portion in question has been declared 1972 as it was a banjar land as such no change could be effected by the revenue authorities referred the matter to the opposite party No.2 with a recommendation that the order of S.D.M. be set-a-side. A copy of the order of revisional court dated 26.07.98 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.3.

10. That while the reference was pending before the Board of Revenue the original revisionist- the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 died as such the petitioner along with his counsel reached the court of opposite party No.3 with an affidavit and certificate form a member of town area salon evidencing date of death of the original revisionist-the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6.

11. That on very date counsel for the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 moved an application for substitution without supplying a copy to the petitioner or his counsel and the learned member of the opposite party No.2 allowed the application for substitution and without giving any opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner.

12. That by the impugned order which is annexure No.3 accepted the recommendation of the opposite party No.3. A copy of the order dated 14.11.2010 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.4.

13. That both the authorities opposite party No.2 & 3 has applied 49 of Consolidation Holding Act improperly while the view of the opposite party No.2 is to the effect that in exceptional circumstances Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation Holding Act does not apply.

14. That in the present case the opposite party has miserably failed to see that the Banjar vest in State of U.P. which manages through gram samaj and they have every right to correct the revenue record in accordance with the development and change of situation.

15. That it is note worthy that consolidation proceeding in the year 1972 and this order of revenue authority passed after a lapse of about 20 years according to the changes that took place."

7. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and writ petition against such proceedings is not maintainable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. He has further relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 as well as in the case of Rahul Dwivedi and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 16 others, Writ-C No.14057 of 2021, decided on 24.08.2021 and decision of the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the proceedings related to Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). It had been constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that proceedings under the Act of 1901 are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and in this regard it would be apt to refer Section 40-A of the Act of 1901 as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), which are extracted here under:- (a) Section 40-A of the Act of 1901, "40-A. Saving as to title suits. - No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding." (b) Section 39 of Code of 2006, "39. Certain orders of revenue officers not to debar a suit.- No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under Section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 35 or by a Sub- Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 38 or by a Commissioner under ¹[sub-section (4) of Section 38] shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under Section 144."

9. In the case of Mathura (Supra), this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under :- "5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.

6. The law is well-settled that: (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; (v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.

3. It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court."

10. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under :- "16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

18. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

11. In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under :- "37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.

38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:- "2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission..."

12. Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under:- "17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."

13. In a recent judgment in case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019, decided on 31.01.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land, nor it has any presumptive value on the title. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are extracted here as under:- "8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).

9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference."

14. In a recent judgment, Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021 has held as under:- "6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 5 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."

15. Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition, which requires proper adjudication, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order(s) and accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, would pass the order after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the records.

4. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private- respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

5. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.07.98 contained as annexure No.3 and order dated 14.10.10 contained as annexure No.4 to this petition."

6. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the writ petition are as under :- "3. That the petitioner belongs to lower strata of Indian society. He is a poor man.

4. That in plot No. 2130 Kha measuring 0-8-7-1/2 (bigha) situate at near Vishal Deep Palace, Pratapgarh Road, Salon, Raebareli is a burial ground-graveyard or qabristan where dead bodies of his ancestral and relatives and others be buried.

5. That in the year 1972 consolidation proceedings concluded. Plot No. 2130 Kha measuring 0-8- 7-1/2 (bigha) was declared "Banjar" as such it became a property of gram samaj which is vested in state.

6. That no occasion arose for the petitioner to approach the consolidation authorities seeking mutation for specific portion as Qabristan.

7. That however when a dead body was sought to be buried in the said graveyard, father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 who has nearby plot No.2130 Ka objected to the burial however due to intervention of the people of locality the burial was allowed.

8. That however apprehending that the the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 is likely to encroach upon the qabristan as such the petitioner moved an application under section 33/39 L.R. Act before the District Magistrate Raebareli and S.D.M. Salon, District Raebareli who called for a report from Tehsildar who after thorough enquiry submitted that the particular portion has sufficient number of grave yards as such that portion of land be mutated as grave yard vide order dated 16.11.89. Copies of report of tehsildar dated 1.12.88 and order dated 16.11.89 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.1 & 2.

9. That the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 who has no concern what so ever with the portion of land filed an appeal before the opposite party No.3 who without application of judicial mind held that as in the consolidation proceeding the portion in question has been declared 1972 as it was a banjar land as such no change could be effected by the revenue authorities referred the matter to the opposite party No.2 with a recommendation that the order of S.D.M. be set-a-side. A copy of the order of revisional court dated 26.07.98 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.3.

10. That while the reference was pending before the Board of Revenue the original revisionist- the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 died as such the petitioner along with his counsel reached the court of opposite party No.3 with an affidavit and certificate form a member of town area salon evidencing date of death of the original revisionist-the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6.

11. That on very date counsel for the father of the opposite party No.5 & 6 moved an application for substitution without supplying a copy to the petitioner or his counsel and the learned member of the opposite party No.2 allowed the application for substitution and without giving any opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner.

12. That by the impugned order which is annexure No.3 accepted the recommendation of the opposite party No.3. A copy of the order dated 14.11.2010 is being filed herewith as Annexure No.4.

13. That both the authorities opposite party No.2 & 3 has applied 49 of Consolidation Holding Act improperly while the view of the opposite party No.2 is to the effect that in exceptional circumstances Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation Holding Act does not apply.

14. That in the present case the opposite party has miserably failed to see that the Banjar vest in State of U.P. which manages through gram samaj and they have every right to correct the revenue record in accordance with the development and change of situation.

15. That it is note worthy that consolidation proceeding in the year 1972 and this order of revenue authority passed after a lapse of about 20 years according to the changes that took place."

7. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and writ petition against such proceedings is not maintainable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. He has further relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 as well as in the case of Rahul Dwivedi and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 16 others, Writ-C No.14057 of 2021, decided on 24.08.2021 and decision of the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the proceedings related to Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). It had been constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that proceedings under the Act of 1901 are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and in this regard it would be apt to refer Section 40-A of the Act of 1901 as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), which are extracted here under:- (a) Section 40-A of the Act of 1901, "40-A. Saving as to title suits. - No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding." (b) Section 39 of Code of 2006, "39. Certain orders of revenue officers not to debar a suit.- No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under Section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of Section 35 or by a Sub- Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 38 or by a Commissioner under ¹[sub-section (4) of Section 38] shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under Section 144."

9. In the case of Mathura (Supra), this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under :- "5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.

6. The law is well-settled that: (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; (v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.

3. It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court."

10. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under :- "16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

18. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

11. In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under :- "37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.

38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:- "2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission..."

12. Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under:- "17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."

13. In a recent judgment in case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019, decided on 31.01.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land, nor it has any presumptive value on the title. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are extracted here as under:- "8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).

9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference."

14. In a recent judgment, Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021 has held as under:- "6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 5 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."

15. Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition, which requires proper adjudication, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order(s) and accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, would pass the order after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench