WRIB/3813/2026 of RAMESHWAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS on 23 September 2026

1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajendra Singh holding brief of Sri Digvijay Singh for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent nos. 2 & 3, dated 16.6.2026 and 28.2.2018, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 33/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute originally belong to one Binda, who had two sons, namely Jageshwar and Rameshwar. Jageshwar predeceased Binda, and his widow Budhiya went to her parental house, where she remarried. The name of petitioner was recorded over the entire property through PA Form 11 on 19.11.1993.

4. On the application of Smt. Budhiya, the mother of respondent no. 5, a case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was registered before the Tehsildar. However, during pendency of the said proceeding, Budhiya died and respondent no. 5 was brought on record as her heir on the basis of a Will executed in her favour on 17.2.1994. In the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Digvijay Singh, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajendra Pratap Singh Rameshwar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

said proceeding the name of respondent no. 5 was recorded over 1/2 share in the land in dispute, being the heir of Jageshwar by the order of the Tehsildar Khaga.

5. The appeal filed by petitioner was allowed by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, dated 16.5.1996. The said order was set aside and the order of Tehsildar directing recording of the name of respondent no. 5 over 1/2 share was upheld by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Administration, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated 6.11.1998.

6. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 transferred her share in the land in dispute to respondent no. 4. The application for mutation of name of respondent no. 4, on the basis of sale deed, was allowed by the Tehsildar Khaga, District Fatehpur on 28.2.2018. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, the respondent no. 2, which has been dismissed by the order dated 16.6.2026.

7. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was recorded after the death of his father over the entire property, as his brother Jageshwar, had predeceased, leaving behind no heir, as his widow had remarried.

8. As petitioner has continuously contested the succession to 1/2 share of the land in dispute of late Binda, and has objected to the succession of respondent no. 5, as the daughter of Jageshwar, his claim has not been properly considered by the Tehsildar while passing the order dated 28.2.2018, which has been upheld by the respondent no. 2 by the order dated 16.6.2026, on erroneous considerations.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 has contended that the name of petitioner recorded through PA Form 11 was struck off on the case registered on the application of Budhiya, the mother of respondent no. 5. As the order dated 6.11.1998, passed by the Additional Commissioner, upholding the mutation of the name of respondent no. 5 in the revenue records attained finality, the petitioner had no right to contest the claim of respondent no. 4 for mutation on the basis of sale deed executed by the recorded tenure holder i.e. respondent no. 5. It has been further contended that the respondent no. 2 & 3 have recorded categorical findings that the order dated 6.11.1998 being effective and not having been interfered by any court or authority, the respondent no. 5 was the sole recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute. As such, mutation claimed by the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 5, could not be denied.

10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. The order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6.11.1998 clearly upholding the finding of the Tehsildar that Budhiya was entitled for 1/2 share in the land held by Binda, was challenged by the petitioner in Revision before the Board of Revenue, which was disposed of by recording a categorical finding that the order dated 6.11.1998 is not liable to be interfered with at this stage.

12. The matter was remanded to the Additional Commissioner to hear and decide the restoration application of the revisionist afresh within 30 days. The said restoration application admittedly was rejected.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the mutation of the name of respondent no. 5 in the revenue records over 1/2 share of Binda attained finality. The said fact as recorded in the orders under challenge could not be disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the sale deed executed by respondent no. 5, the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute in favour of respondent no. 4, could not have been ignored by the revenue authorities, while deciding the claim of the respondent no. 4 to be recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of said sale deed.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is warranted by this Court with the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

16. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

17. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get his right declared over the share of his brother, who predeceased his father, by filing an appropriate proceeding for declaration of his right. September 24, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu

(Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad