High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Amol Kumar who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.4 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to khata No.s 68, 69, 93, 95 and 309 of khatauni of 1428-1433 fasli including gata No.s 120, 121, 132, 134, 154, 168, 252, 239/308 and 266 situated in Village Judapatti, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur as well as khata No.309 and 498 of khatauni of 1426- 1431 fasli including gata No.s 892, 893, 895 Kha and 909 Kha situated in Village Gyanipur of the same tehsil.

3. It is further submitted that aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Ramzan Ali, who had died issue less on 24.12.2017. Opposite party No.4 claiming himself to be the son of Ramzan Ali, had moved application for mutation under Section 34 before Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur. The petitioner and the State also moved respective applications for mutation of the same property out of which the application of opposite party No.4 was allowed vide order dated 5.7.2023 holding that he was able to prove that he was the son of Ramzan Ali and the properties were directed to be mutated in his name.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur had preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, who partly allowed the said appeal vide order dated 1.3.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for deciding the matter afresh.

5. It is agaisnt this remand order dated 1.3.2024 that opposite party No.4 preferred a revision before opposite party No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya who partly allowed the said revision by means of order dated 10.1.2025 and the revisional authority was of the view that the Sub Divisional Magistrate/ appellate authority could not have remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for consideration afresh in light of the fact that all the matterial was available before him to have himself decided all the contentious issues raised by the parties rather than remanding the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar.

6. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision against the order dated 10.1.2025 before Board of Revenue which has been dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2025 against which the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision has upheld the order of Naib Tehsildar where the application under Section 34 of U.P. revenue Code was decided in favour of opposite party No.4. The main plank of the argument of the petitioner is that even if the revision were to be dismissed then the order of Commissioner dated 10.1.2025 should have been upheld who had directed the matter to be decided afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He submtis that even while dismissing his revision he would not have been put to the worst situation than he was at the time of filing of the revision. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner would have no grievance in case the dispute is decided afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in light of the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.

8. Sri Amol Kumar arguing on behalf of opposite party No.4 has submitted that in exercise of the powers under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code the Board of Revenue exercising the revisional powers had full authority to have re-examined all the issues and decided the same on the basis of the material available on record. Accordingly, he submits that it is in aforesaid circumstances that exercise of the powers of revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, the Board of Revenue has finally given quietus to the dispute and held that the disputed property ought to have been recorded in the name of opposite party No.4 and accordingly supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

10. The only dispute in the present controversy pertains to as to who would be the person who had right to succeed the property of Ramzan Ali, who allegedly died issue-less. Opposite party No.4 had claimed himself to be the son of Ramzan Ali while the petitioner claims himself to be the nephew of Ramzan Ali and consequently on the basis of the evidence this issue ought to have been decided by the revenue authorities. The Naib Tehsil was of the view that opposite party No.4 being son of the tenure holder was entitled to succeed the property of Ramzan Ali and, therefore, allowed teh application but the order dated 5.7.2023 was interfered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in appeal and remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for being decided afresh and further the order dated 1.2.2024 was further interfered by Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction partly allowing the revision of opposite party No.4 and directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter instead of deciding the matter himself as all the material was there before him and there was no requirement to have remanded the matter back further to Naib Tehsildar. Surprisingly, the Board of Revenue in the prevision preferred by the petitioner has upheld the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 5.7.2023. We have no doubt that such an order could legally have been passed by the Board of Revenue had they examined all the material before them and returned a clear finding in favour of respondent No.4.

11. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that all the material available which has been filed by both the parties before Naib Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate have fallen short in examining all the material and returning equivocal finding in favour of opposite party No.4 so as to uphold the order passed by Naib Tehsildar dated 5.7.2023. We further find that the argument of the petitioner are liable to be accepted in as much as even if the revision was to be dismissed then the order dated 10.1.2025 which was assailed by the petitioner was liable to be upheld by the Board of Revenue.

12. In light of the above, we find that the impugned order falls short of appreciating evidence available before them and recording a categorical finding in favour of respondent No.4. The only other option before the Board of Revenue was to adjudicate upon the validity of the order impugned in the revision dated 10.1.2025. Even if the revision preferred by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed then in such circumstances the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by the Commissioner was liable to be upheld. It is for the aforesaid infirmities that we find that the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 7.7.2025 deserves to be set aside.

13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 7.7.2025 is set aside.

14. Both the parties are agreed on the fact that the matter may be remitted back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate so that the appeal preferred by the petitioner may be decided afresh and in the appellate proceedings the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall look into all the material which has been raised on behalf of both the parties and decide the issues pertaining to the succession of Ramzan Ali. While deciding the said matter he shall give full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and give reasoned and speaking replies with regard to the issues framed by him.

15. Both the parties agree that the Sub Divisional Magistrate may be directed to decide the matter with expedition. Accordingly, it is provided that both the parties may file any other material within next two weeks and the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall conclude the proceedings within two months thereafter in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Amol Kumar who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.4 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to khata No.s 68, 69, 93, 95 and 309 of khatauni of 1428-1433 fasli including gata No.s 120, 121, 132, 134, 154, 168, 252, 239/308 and 266 situated in Village Judapatti, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur as well as khata No.309 and 498 of khatauni of 1426- 1431 fasli including gata No.s 892, 893, 895 Kha and 909 Kha situated in Village Gyanipur of the same tehsil.

3. It is further submitted that aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Ramzan Ali, who had died issue less on 24.12.2017. Opposite party No.4 claiming himself to be the son of Ramzan Ali, had moved application for mutation under Section 34 before Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur. The petitioner and the State also moved respective applications for mutation of the same property out of which the application of opposite party No.4 was allowed vide order dated 5.7.2023 holding that he was able to prove that he was the son of Ramzan Ali and the properties were directed to be mutated in his name.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur had preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, who partly allowed the said appeal vide order dated 1.3.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for deciding the matter afresh.

5. It is agaisnt this remand order dated 1.3.2024 that opposite party No.4 preferred a revision before opposite party No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya who partly allowed the said revision by means of order dated 10.1.2025 and the revisional authority was of the view that the Sub Divisional Magistrate/ appellate authority could not have remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for consideration afresh in light of the fact that all the matterial was available before him to have himself decided all the contentious issues raised by the parties rather than remanding the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar.

6. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision against the order dated 10.1.2025 before Board of Revenue which has been dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2025 against which the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision has upheld the order of Naib Tehsildar where the application under Section 34 of U.P. revenue Code was decided in favour of opposite party No.4. The main plank of the argument of the petitioner is that even if the revision were to be dismissed then the order of Commissioner dated 10.1.2025 should have been upheld who had directed the matter to be decided afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He submtis that even while dismissing his revision he would not have been put to the worst situation than he was at the time of filing of the revision. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner would have no grievance in case the dispute is decided afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in light of the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.

8. Sri Amol Kumar arguing on behalf of opposite party No.4 has submitted that in exercise of the powers under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code the Board of Revenue exercising the revisional powers had full authority to have re-examined all the issues and decided the same on the basis of the material available on record. Accordingly, he submits that it is in aforesaid circumstances that exercise of the powers of revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, the Board of Revenue has finally given quietus to the dispute and held that the disputed property ought to have been recorded in the name of opposite party No.4 and accordingly supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record.

10. The only dispute in the present controversy pertains to as to who would be the person who had right to succeed the property of Ramzan Ali, who allegedly died issue-less. Opposite party No.4 had claimed himself to be the son of Ramzan Ali while the petitioner claims himself to be the nephew of Ramzan Ali and consequently on the basis of the evidence this issue ought to have been decided by the revenue authorities. The Naib Tehsil was of the view that opposite party No.4 being son of the tenure holder was entitled to succeed the property of Ramzan Ali and, therefore, allowed teh application but the order dated 5.7.2023 was interfered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in appeal and remanded the matter back to the Naib Tehsildar for being decided afresh and further the order dated 1.2.2024 was further interfered by Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction partly allowing the revision of opposite party No.4 and directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter instead of deciding the matter himself as all the material was there before him and there was no requirement to have remanded the matter back further to Naib Tehsildar. Surprisingly, the Board of Revenue in the prevision preferred by the petitioner has upheld the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 5.7.2023. We have no doubt that such an order could legally have been passed by the Board of Revenue had they examined all the material before them and returned a clear finding in favour of respondent No.4.

11. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that all the material available which has been filed by both the parties before Naib Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate have fallen short in examining all the material and returning equivocal finding in favour of opposite party No.4 so as to uphold the order passed by Naib Tehsildar dated 5.7.2023. We further find that the argument of the petitioner are liable to be accepted in as much as even if the revision was to be dismissed then the order dated 10.1.2025 which was assailed by the petitioner was liable to be upheld by the Board of Revenue.

12. In light of the above, we find that the impugned order falls short of appreciating evidence available before them and recording a categorical finding in favour of respondent No.4. The only other option before the Board of Revenue was to adjudicate upon the validity of the order impugned in the revision dated 10.1.2025. Even if the revision preferred by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed then in such circumstances the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by the Commissioner was liable to be upheld. It is for the aforesaid infirmities that we find that the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 7.7.2025 deserves to be set aside.

13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 7.7.2025 is set aside.

14. Both the parties are agreed on the fact that the matter may be remitted back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate so that the appeal preferred by the petitioner may be decided afresh and in the appellate proceedings the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall look into all the material which has been raised on behalf of both the parties and decide the issues pertaining to the succession of Ramzan Ali. While deciding the said matter he shall give full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and give reasoned and speaking replies with regard to the issues framed by him.

15. Both the parties agree that the Sub Divisional Magistrate may be directed to decide the matter with expedition. Accordingly, it is provided that both the parties may file any other material within next two weeks and the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall conclude the proceedings within two months thereafter in accordance with law. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench