Ladaiti v. Musafir and Others) wherein the said revision has been rejected

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Bahar Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 as well as Sri Rajeev Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9, 16 and 17.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 12.09.1993 passed by Additional Commissioner Judicial-I, Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Revision No. 540 of 2023 (Ladaiti Vs. Musafir and Others) wherein the said revision has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that Chheddu, father of the petitioner, was bhoomidhar of transferrable rights of land Khasara No. 685/ 0.162 hectare, Khasara No. 686/2/0.012 hectare, Khasara No. 719/ 0.134 hectare and Khasara No. 720/ 0.166 hectare, situated at Village and Pargana Ilasiya Grant, Tehsil and District Sitapur; Khasara No. 93/ 0.462 hectare, Khasara No. 94/ 0.255 hectare, Khasara No. 95/1/ 0.162 hectare, situated at Village Ahata Kaptan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur, Khasara No. 178/ 0.089 hectare, Khasara No. 179/1/ 0.049 hectare, Khasara No. 192/2/0.652 hectare, Khasara No. 194/ 0.121 hectare, Khasara No. 179/2/ 0.117 hectare, situated at Village Laxmanpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur. On the death of Chheddu on 24.11.1988, his brother Bechcha filed three cases for mutation in Case No. 352, 353 & 354, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 with regard to the land situated at Khata No. 52 situated at Village Laxmanpur, and Khata No. 14 situated at Village Ahata Kaptan and Khata No. 51 situated at Village Ilasiya Grant, respectively, on the basis of succession.

4. In the said proceedings, the petitioner also stated her claim to the properties of Chheddu being his daughter apart from which it was stated that by an oral hibaa (gift deed) the property is devolved upon the petitioner. In the said proceedings, objections were also filed by one Rani stating that she is the widow of Chheddu and according to the muslim law of succession, she is entitled to succeed the property of Chheddu. The Tehsildar, Sitapur by means of order dated 19.12.1989, rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and allowed the objection filed by Rani. All the applicants had supported their case by evidence and also adduced witnesses to support their claim. Bechcha himself was examined during the said proceedings and Rani also appeared in the said proceedings and testified herself in support of her claim. She had filed copy of the Parivar Register and also number of receipts indicating that she was the wife of Chheddu. The claim of the petitioner was also duly examined. Bechu, the brother of Chheddu did not support the case of the petitioner and denied that any gift deed was orally executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand had also contested the claim of Rani that she was the wife of Chheddu. It has also been recorded that the petitioner in her testimony has clearly stated that Chheddu had certain relations with Rani but could not categorically say that they were married. She had further denied the fact that Shamina was the daughter of Chheddu through Rani but on the other hand had stated that Rani and Chheddu had a daughter namely Shamina. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and duly considering the evidence that the Tehsildar accepted the evidence pertaining to the fact that Chheddu was married to Rani and accordingly was entitled to inherit the properties of Chheddu while on the other hand the petitioner could not demonstrate or establish her title on the basis of an oral gift deed and Rani had established that she was the widow of Chheddu then her right to claim to the property would precede the right of Bechu who was the brother of the deceased.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar filed an appeal before the Pargana Adhikari/ Assistant Collector, Class-I, Sitapur. The said appeal was also dismissed on 16.01.1991. In the said appellate proceedings, the central issue raised by the petitioner was with regard to the fact that as to whether Rani was the wife of Chheddu. In this regard, it was duly considered that in the testimony of the petitioner herself, she had stated that Rani and Chheddu used to meet very frequently but the petitioner was not aware of the fact that Rani was married to Chheddu.

6. While on the other hand, another witnesses stated that Shamina was the daughter and Chheddu and Rani and accordingly considering the conjoint evidence on record, the appellate authority was also of the view that Rani has been able to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of Chheddu and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

7. Being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 16.01.1991, the petitioner had filed a revision in the year 2023 under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It was noticed that the said revision has been filed after a delay of 34 years and accordingly the same was hopelessly delayed and also that the reason for delay had not been adequately explained which according to the petitioner was on account of the poor financial state of the petitioner and also that she was not keeping well and hence only on account of limitation, the revision was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the revisional proceedings, certain fresh documents had been annexed by him which indicated that the claim of Rani was false and fabricated. He has submitted that in fact Rani was the wife of one Late Sahib and after the death of Sahib, she had executed a registered will deed dated 30.08.1999 in favour of her daughter Shamina wife of Liyaqat and her son-in-law Jaleel son of Thakuri. Only on assuming that these facts were pleaded for the first time in the revisional court and it has been submitted that the claim of Rani was accordingly on the basis of fraud. It is on the aforesaid facts it has been submitted that the revisional court should have condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for determination afresh.

9. The petition has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. They have submitted that the Tehsildar has duly recorded and considered the evidence and it could not be said that all the material placed by the petitioner and other applicants was duly considered while passing the order under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in favour of Rani. Even the appeal against the said order was dismissed and there is no adequate explanation forthcoming for the delay of 34 years in filing of the present petition and accordingly submitted that there is no ground for interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They have finally submitted that present proceedings and mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which pertains only to mutation proceedings which are confined only for determination of the person who is liable to pay land revenue and does not impact the substantative rights of any person.

10. It has further been submitted that any finding recorded in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 do not affect the right and title of the party to the land and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802 and Smt. Kalawati Vs. the Board of Revenue (2022) SCC OnLine All 193 where it has been stated that in a dispute like the present one, the parties have to file a regular suit and place the material evidence in their favour and seek a declaration with regard to the right and interest relating to the title of the said land.

11. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the Tehsildar, Sitapur has duly considered the material placed before it including the evidence relied upon by the petitioner and other evidence and held that Rani was entitled to succeed the interest of property of Chheddu who was her husband. The petitioner did not succeed before the appellate court while the order of Tehsildar was upheld. Considering the fact that in the meanwhile some fresh documents have been obtained by the petitioner, which also do not categorically indicate that Rani was not the wife of Chheddu though he may be able to demonstrate that as per the registered will, she has claimed herself to be the wife of one Sahib but even if the petitioner is able to prove at the best, he may be able to dis-entitle Rani from the property of Chheddu but still there is no averment in the entire revision with regard to the gift deed on the basis of which the petitioner seeks to inherit the property of Chheddu.

12. We find that the Tehsildar, Sitapur had duly given reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis of oral gift deed and to that extent even in the present revision, there is no material forthcoming with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to succeed the property of Chheddu on the basis of gift deed. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference in the matter even if we agree with the contention placed by the petitioner. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that in case the petitioner seeks a declaration with regard to the title to the property of Chheddu, then it is necessary for him to file a regular suit for declaration before a court of competent jurisdiction, which in any case would be binding upon the revenue courts. The proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceedings and on the basis of such proceedings, right and title in the property does not devolve.

13. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observation, we do not find any ground of interference in the present writ petition. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Bahar Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 as well as Sri Rajeev Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9, 16 and 17.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 12.09.1993 passed by Additional Commissioner Judicial-I, Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Revision No. 540 of 2023 (Ladaiti Vs. Musafir and Others) wherein the said revision has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that Chheddu, father of the petitioner, was bhoomidhar of transferrable rights of land Khasara No. 685/ 0.162 hectare, Khasara No. 686/2/0.012 hectare, Khasara No. 719/ 0.134 hectare and Khasara No. 720/ 0.166 hectare, situated at Village and Pargana Ilasiya Grant, Tehsil and District Sitapur; Khasara No. 93/ 0.462 hectare, Khasara No. 94/ 0.255 hectare, Khasara No. 95/1/ 0.162 hectare, situated at Village Ahata Kaptan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur, Khasara No. 178/ 0.089 hectare, Khasara No. 179/1/ 0.049 hectare, Khasara No. 192/2/0.652 hectare, Khasara No. 194/ 0.121 hectare, Khasara No. 179/2/ 0.117 hectare, situated at Village Laxmanpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Sitapur. On the death of Chheddu on 24.11.1988, his brother Bechcha filed three cases for mutation in Case No. 352, 353 & 354, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 with regard to the land situated at Khata No. 52 situated at Village Laxmanpur, and Khata No. 14 situated at Village Ahata Kaptan and Khata No. 51 situated at Village Ilasiya Grant, respectively, on the basis of succession.

4. In the said proceedings, the petitioner also stated her claim to the properties of Chheddu being his daughter apart from which it was stated that by an oral hibaa (gift deed) the property is devolved upon the petitioner. In the said proceedings, objections were also filed by one Rani stating that she is the widow of Chheddu and according to the muslim law of succession, she is entitled to succeed the property of Chheddu. The Tehsildar, Sitapur by means of order dated 19.12.1989, rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and allowed the objection filed by Rani. All the applicants had supported their case by evidence and also adduced witnesses to support their claim. Bechcha himself was examined during the said proceedings and Rani also appeared in the said proceedings and testified herself in support of her claim. She had filed copy of the Parivar Register and also number of receipts indicating that she was the wife of Chheddu. The claim of the petitioner was also duly examined. Bechu, the brother of Chheddu did not support the case of the petitioner and denied that any gift deed was orally executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand had also contested the claim of Rani that she was the wife of Chheddu. It has also been recorded that the petitioner in her testimony has clearly stated that Chheddu had certain relations with Rani but could not categorically say that they were married. She had further denied the fact that Shamina was the daughter of Chheddu through Rani but on the other hand had stated that Rani and Chheddu had a daughter namely Shamina. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and duly considering the evidence that the Tehsildar accepted the evidence pertaining to the fact that Chheddu was married to Rani and accordingly was entitled to inherit the properties of Chheddu while on the other hand the petitioner could not demonstrate or establish her title on the basis of an oral gift deed and Rani had established that she was the widow of Chheddu then her right to claim to the property would precede the right of Bechu who was the brother of the deceased.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar filed an appeal before the Pargana Adhikari/ Assistant Collector, Class-I, Sitapur. The said appeal was also dismissed on 16.01.1991. In the said appellate proceedings, the central issue raised by the petitioner was with regard to the fact that as to whether Rani was the wife of Chheddu. In this regard, it was duly considered that in the testimony of the petitioner herself, she had stated that Rani and Chheddu used to meet very frequently but the petitioner was not aware of the fact that Rani was married to Chheddu.

6. While on the other hand, another witnesses stated that Shamina was the daughter and Chheddu and Rani and accordingly considering the conjoint evidence on record, the appellate authority was also of the view that Rani has been able to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of Chheddu and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

7. Being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 16.01.1991, the petitioner had filed a revision in the year 2023 under Section 219 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It was noticed that the said revision has been filed after a delay of 34 years and accordingly the same was hopelessly delayed and also that the reason for delay had not been adequately explained which according to the petitioner was on account of the poor financial state of the petitioner and also that she was not keeping well and hence only on account of limitation, the revision was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the revisional proceedings, certain fresh documents had been annexed by him which indicated that the claim of Rani was false and fabricated. He has submitted that in fact Rani was the wife of one Late Sahib and after the death of Sahib, she had executed a registered will deed dated 30.08.1999 in favour of her daughter Shamina wife of Liyaqat and her son-in-law Jaleel son of Thakuri. Only on assuming that these facts were pleaded for the first time in the revisional court and it has been submitted that the claim of Rani was accordingly on the basis of fraud. It is on the aforesaid facts it has been submitted that the revisional court should have condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for determination afresh.

9. The petition has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. They have submitted that the Tehsildar has duly recorded and considered the evidence and it could not be said that all the material placed by the petitioner and other applicants was duly considered while passing the order under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in favour of Rani. Even the appeal against the said order was dismissed and there is no adequate explanation forthcoming for the delay of 34 years in filing of the present petition and accordingly submitted that there is no ground for interference by this Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They have finally submitted that present proceedings and mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which pertains only to mutation proceedings which are confined only for determination of the person who is liable to pay land revenue and does not impact the substantative rights of any person.

10. It has further been submitted that any finding recorded in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 do not affect the right and title of the party to the land and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitin Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802 and Smt. Kalawati Vs. the Board of Revenue (2022) SCC OnLine All 193 where it has been stated that in a dispute like the present one, the parties have to file a regular suit and place the material evidence in their favour and seek a declaration with regard to the right and interest relating to the title of the said land.

11. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the Tehsildar, Sitapur has duly considered the material placed before it including the evidence relied upon by the petitioner and other evidence and held that Rani was entitled to succeed the interest of property of Chheddu who was her husband. The petitioner did not succeed before the appellate court while the order of Tehsildar was upheld. Considering the fact that in the meanwhile some fresh documents have been obtained by the petitioner, which also do not categorically indicate that Rani was not the wife of Chheddu though he may be able to demonstrate that as per the registered will, she has claimed herself to be the wife of one Sahib but even if the petitioner is able to prove at the best, he may be able to dis-entitle Rani from the property of Chheddu but still there is no averment in the entire revision with regard to the gift deed on the basis of which the petitioner seeks to inherit the property of Chheddu.

12. We find that the Tehsildar, Sitapur had duly given reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis of oral gift deed and to that extent even in the present revision, there is no material forthcoming with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to succeed the property of Chheddu on the basis of gift deed. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference in the matter even if we agree with the contention placed by the petitioner. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that in case the petitioner seeks a declaration with regard to the title to the property of Chheddu, then it is necessary for him to file a regular suit for declaration before a court of competent jurisdiction, which in any case would be binding upon the revenue courts. The proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceedings and on the basis of such proceedings, right and title in the property does not devolve.

13. Accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observation, we do not find any ground of interference in the present writ petition. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 (Manoj K.) (Alok Mathur, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench