Anand Kumar Singh vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And

Heard Sri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Suyash Pandey, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3.

2. The present controversy relates to succession of the property which was recorded initially in the name of Sri Lal Rama Yadupal Singh with relation to the property situated at Khata No.00792, plot No.1862 Ga/ 1.8330 hectare, situated in Village Jaudaha, Pargana and Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli. After death of Lal Rama Yadupal Singh, the land came to be recorded in the name of his wife Smt. Vishwanath Kumari Singh who also died on 16.7.1998 and it is only on her death that the present controversy pertaining to succession has emerged.

3. On one hand, the claim was made by Kunwar Chandra Pratap Singh i.e. opposite party No.3 claiming himself to be Devar of deceased Vishwanath Kunwari and, on the other hand, Smt. Sushma Devi had also moved an application for mutation on the ground that she was the daughter of Vishwanath Kunwari.

4. The matter was dealt with by the Tehsildar, Salon who by means of his order dated 30.1.2023 after taking into consideration that the dispute was pending before Civil Judge in Suit No.3237 of 2021 2 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 did not pass any order pending decision before the civil court.

5. Against order dated 30.1.2023 two appeals were filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salon, Raebareli. Both the appeals were clubbed together and were decided on 17.8.2023. The Sub Divisional Magistrate considered the controversy as well as the provisions of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and found that Sushma Devi's claim to the property was superior to the claim of Kunwar Chandra Pratap Singh and allowed the appeal of Sushma Devi holding her to be a person who can succeed the disputed property.

6. Against the order dated 17.8.2023 the revision was filed before Additional Commissioner who allowed the revision by means of order dated 10.11.2023 and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh after recording the evidence.

7. The revisional court was of the view that the claim of opposite party No.3 was made on the basis of an adoption deed which was questioned by Sushma Devi and he was of the view that no evidence has been recorded in this regard and, hence, no finding could be discerned with regard to validity of the adoption deed and there as no material on record in this regard, therefore, he remanded the matter back.

8. Against the order dated 10.11.2023 revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed and consequently the present writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs and Sushma Devi challenging the orders dated 11.9.2025 and 10.11.2023.

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and arbitrary in as much as during pendency of the said revision Sushma Devi died on

23.6.2024 and application for substitution was also moved on 16.7.2025 which according to the petitioner was on the ground that 3 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 without allowing the said application the revision has been dismissed.

10. Filing of the substitution application on 16.7.2025 has not been disputed by Sri Suyash Pandey appearing on behalf of opposite party No.3 and clearly the revisionist had died during pendency of the revision and undoubtedly the order was passed against a dead person and in such circumstances the impugned orders dated 11.9.2025 and

10.11.2023 cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the wit petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated

11.9.2025 and 10.11.2023, as contained in Annexure No.s 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue.

12. Considering the fact that the parties have been litigating for a very long time despite the fact that regular suit for the same dispute is pending before the civil court and in such circumstances there is no dispute with regard to legal proposition that finding returned by a civil court of competent jurisdiction where declaration has been sought would prevail over any order passed in proceedings under Sections 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code. With regard to the proceedings relating to mutation of the property, this Court is of the view that once the parties are before a civil court and the proceedings are underway where according to counsel for opposite party No.3 written submissions has also been filed and the suit is at the stage of evidence then no purpose will be served by directing the revenue courts to pass repeated orders and permitting the parties to challenge the said order one after the other before a higher revenue authority. Quietus to the present dispute can be had by a suitable direction to the civil court to conclude the suit proceedings expeditiously.

13. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances the revision preferred by the petitioner is restored before the Board of Revenue which shall await the decision of the civil court before passing any final orders 4 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 in the matter and, on the other hand, the civil court is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court concerned in accordance with law.

14. The parties before us have undertaken to cooperate in the suit proceedings and the parties will have full opportunity to place their case before the court, which shall consider and decide the same.

15. Pending decision of the said dispute, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing today. On receipt of the judgement and order by the trial court, the same should be placed before the Board of Revenue, who shall proceed to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law.

16. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands partly allowed. November 10, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Suyash Pandey, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3.

2. The present controversy relates to succession of the property which was recorded initially in the name of Sri Lal Rama Yadupal Singh with relation to the property situated at Khata No.00792, plot No.1862 Ga/ 1.8330 hectare, situated in Village Jaudaha, Pargana and Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli. After death of Lal Rama Yadupal Singh, the land came to be recorded in the name of his wife Smt. Vishwanath Kumari Singh who also died on 16.7.1998 and it is only on her death that the present controversy pertaining to succession has emerged.

3. On one hand, the claim was made by Kunwar Chandra Pratap Singh i.e. opposite party No.3 claiming himself to be Devar of deceased Vishwanath Kunwari and, on the other hand, Smt. Sushma Devi had also moved an application for mutation on the ground that she was the daughter of Vishwanath Kunwari.

4. The matter was dealt with by the Tehsildar, Salon who by means of his order dated 30.1.2023 after taking into consideration that the dispute was pending before Civil Judge in Suit No.3237 of 2021 2 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 did not pass any order pending decision before the civil court.

5. Against order dated 30.1.2023 two appeals were filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salon, Raebareli. Both the appeals were clubbed together and were decided on 17.8.2023. The Sub Divisional Magistrate considered the controversy as well as the provisions of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and found that Sushma Devi's claim to the property was superior to the claim of Kunwar Chandra Pratap Singh and allowed the appeal of Sushma Devi holding her to be a person who can succeed the disputed property.

6. Against the order dated 17.8.2023 the revision was filed before Additional Commissioner who allowed the revision by means of order dated 10.11.2023 and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the matter afresh after recording the evidence.

7. The revisional court was of the view that the claim of opposite party No.3 was made on the basis of an adoption deed which was questioned by Sushma Devi and he was of the view that no evidence has been recorded in this regard and, hence, no finding could be discerned with regard to validity of the adoption deed and there as no material on record in this regard, therefore, he remanded the matter back.

8. Against the order dated 10.11.2023 revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed and consequently the present writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs and Sushma Devi challenging the orders dated 11.9.2025 and 10.11.2023.

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of Board of Revenue is illegal and arbitrary in as much as during pendency of the said revision Sushma Devi died on

23.6.2024 and application for substitution was also moved on 16.7.2025 which according to the petitioner was on the ground that 3 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 without allowing the said application the revision has been dismissed.

10. Filing of the substitution application on 16.7.2025 has not been disputed by Sri Suyash Pandey appearing on behalf of opposite party No.3 and clearly the revisionist had died during pendency of the revision and undoubtedly the order was passed against a dead person and in such circumstances the impugned orders dated 11.9.2025 and

10.11.2023 cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the wit petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated

11.9.2025 and 10.11.2023, as contained in Annexure No.s 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue.

12. Considering the fact that the parties have been litigating for a very long time despite the fact that regular suit for the same dispute is pending before the civil court and in such circumstances there is no dispute with regard to legal proposition that finding returned by a civil court of competent jurisdiction where declaration has been sought would prevail over any order passed in proceedings under Sections 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code. With regard to the proceedings relating to mutation of the property, this Court is of the view that once the parties are before a civil court and the proceedings are underway where according to counsel for opposite party No.3 written submissions has also been filed and the suit is at the stage of evidence then no purpose will be served by directing the revenue courts to pass repeated orders and permitting the parties to challenge the said order one after the other before a higher revenue authority. Quietus to the present dispute can be had by a suitable direction to the civil court to conclude the suit proceedings expeditiously.

13. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances the revision preferred by the petitioner is restored before the Board of Revenue which shall await the decision of the civil court before passing any final orders 4 WRIB No. 1027 of 2025 in the matter and, on the other hand, the civil court is directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court concerned in accordance with law.

14. The parties before us have undertaken to cooperate in the suit proceedings and the parties will have full opportunity to place their case before the court, which shall consider and decide the same.

15. Pending decision of the said dispute, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing today. On receipt of the judgement and order by the trial court, the same should be placed before the Board of Revenue, who shall proceed to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law.

16. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands partly allowed. November 10, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench