# Deep Narayan Prasad v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Alld. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-13
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 921 of 2020
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deep-narayan-prasad-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-alld-ors-49663
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Section 34 - Mutation - Petitioner's name
recorded on the basis of compromise
decree of the Civil Court - Mutation court
ordered to expunge the petitioner's name
from the revenue records - Held - As the
compromise decree had not been recalled,
set aside, or modified by any court,
therefore, the name of the petitioner
cannot be expunged from the revenue
records - Respondents directed to record
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner's name in the revenue
records based on the compromise decree
passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit (Para
19)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

1 All. Deep Narayan Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Alld. & Ors.
555

83. The doctor who has conducted the
post-mortem in his testimony before the
trial court has stated that the death could
have occurred as a result of antemortem
injuries sustained by the deceased. It is to
be noted that the blackening and tattooing
was present on the injury sustained by
deceased. The aforesaid is indicative of the
fact that the firearm weapon was used from
close range. The nature of injury sustained
by the deceased and place where the
injuries have been sustained it can be said
that the Appellant-Kailash fired on the
deceased with the intention of causing
injury as is likely to cause death or the
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Further the
injuries and act of the Appellant-Kailash
was imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.

84. It is further to be noted that
carrying firearm weapon at the place of
occurrence is itself indicative of intention
of accused person to cause death or such
injury as is likely to cause death. The injury
has been caused on the vital part by
accused person. Under the circumstances
the Appellant-Kailash is liable to be
convicted under section 302 of the Indian
penal code for the act of murder.

85.

Considering
the
overall
circumstances and submissions of learned
counsel for the Appellants, learned A.G.A.
for the State and after going through the
evidence and lower court record, we are
unable to persuade ourselves in taking a
different opinion from that of trial court.
The trial court was fully justified in
convicting the Appellants.

86.

Learned
counsel
for
the
Appellants failed to point out any illegality,
infirmity or perversity in the judgment of
the trial court.

87. Both the appeals lack merit and
are, accordingly, dismissed.

88. Registrar General of this Court is
directed to pay an honorarium of Rs.
25,000/- to Sri Gagan Pratap Singh, learned
Amicus Curiae for rendering effective
assistance in the appeal

89. Let the lower court record be
transmitted back to court below along with
a copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-A No. 921 of 2020

Deep Narayan Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Alld. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Sri R.K.R.
Sharma, Shri Rakesh Pandey(Sr. Advocate)

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Section 34 - Mutation - Petitioner's name
recorded on the basis of compromise
decree of the Civil Court - Mutation court
ordered to expunge the petitioner's name
from the revenue records - Held - As the
compromise decree had not been recalled,
set aside, or modified by any court,
therefore, the name of the petitioner
cannot be expunged from the revenue
records - Respondents directed to record
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner's name in the revenue
records based on the compromise decree
passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit (Para
19)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar
Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav,
Counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that
petitioner and respondent No. 4 are real
brothers. A registered will deed was
executed by petitioner's father Vijay Prasad
on 17.01.2002 in favour of petitioner in
respect of his entire property situated in
Village Sonvarsha, Bahuara and Araji Mafi
Bal Govind Ram Upadhaya. Petitioner's
father Vijay Prasad died on 12.10.2009,
accordingly petitioner applied for mutation
of his name on the basis of registered will
deed executed on 17.01.2002 by late Vijay
Prasad. The cases were registered as Case
Nos. 552, 553 and 554. Respondent No. 4
also applied for mutation of his name on
the basis of a will deed executed on
28.01.2002 which were registered as Case
Nos. 626, 627 and 628. During pendency of
the mutation case, respondent No. 4 filed a
civil suit No. 333 of 2010 challenging the
validity of the will deed dated 17.01.2002
executed in favour of the petitioner.
However, respondent No. 4 and petitioner
have entered into a compromise on
02.01.2015 in Civil Suit No 333 of 2010.
Accordingly, Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010
was decreed in terms of compromise vide
judgement
dated
20.01.2015.
A
compromise was also entered into between
both parties in aforementioned mutation
cases 552 553 and 554 accordingly, an
order was passed by respondent No. 3 in
the mutation proceeding to record the name
of petitioner in place of deceased tenure
holder Vijay Prasad vide order dated
26.05.2016. After passing of order dated
26.05.2016, a recall application has been
filed by respondent No. 4 before the
respondent No. 3 and vide order dated
17.05.2018 respondent No. 3 ordered to
expunge the name of petitioner and to
record the name of petitoner as well as
respondent No. 4 being natural heirs of
deceased Vijay Prasad. Against the order
dated 17.05.2018 petitioner filed an appeal
before respondent No. 2 taking specific
ground that civil suit in respect to the
registered will deed in question has been
decided in favour of petitioner vide order
dated 20.01.2015 but the appellate court
without considering the same has dismissed
the petitioner's appeal vide order dated
31.12.2018 on the ground that will deed has
not been proved in accordance with law.
Petitioner challenged the order of the
Tehsildar as well as order of the appellate
court before Board of Revenue through
revision before the Board of Revenue.
Board of Revenue has entertained the
revision filed by petitioner and granted an
interim order in the pending revision but
after hearing both parties Board of Revenue
has dismissed the petitioner's revision vide
order dated 04.03.2020, hence this writ
petition.

3. This Court while entertaining the
writ petition, has passed the following
order dated 06.08.2020:-

"Shri R.K.R. Sharma, Advocate has
filed his power on behalf of respondent
no. 2 after having obtained the no
objection of Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav,
who had filed a caveat in this case.
1 All. Deep Narayan Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Alld. & Ors.
557

The contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that his mutation
application
stands
dismissed
by
the
impugned order, although, the parties had
entered into a compromise before the civil
court, which is an admitted fact. The
compromise admitted petitioner's claim.

Counsel appearing for the respondent
no. 4 may file a counter affidavit within
three weeks.

Petitioner
will
have
two
weeks
thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter for admission/final
disposal."

4. On 20.09.2022 this Court passed
the
following
interim
order
dated
20.09.2022:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

Since the civil court has decided the
civil suit filed by contesting respondent in
respect to will deed in question on the
basis of compromise which has attained
finality and in the subsequent suit filed by
contesting respondent, no injunction is
operating.

Accordingly, till the next date of
listing, no alienation shall be made by the
parties in respect to property in dispute.

List this petition on 10.10.2022."

5. On 14.10.2022 interim order
granted on 20.09.2022 was extended till
further orders of this Court.

6. Respondent No. 4 has filed his
counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed
his rejoinder affidavit also.

7.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that petitioner has claimed the
right on the basis of registered will deed
dated 17.01.2002. He further submitted that
civil suit filed by respondent No. 4 for
cancellation of the petitioner's registered
will deed has been decided on the basis of
compromise entered into between the
parties in the Civil Court vide judgement
dated 20.01.2015 and the compromise
application dated 02.01.2015 has been
made part of the judgment and decree. He
further submitted that in the compromise
application signed by both the parties it is
specifically mentioned that defendant of the
Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 namely Deep
Narayan will be recorded on the basis of
registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 and
the plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no
objection regarding the same. He further
submitted that unless the compromise
decree of the Civil Court is recalled/ set
aside/ modified the mutation Court has no
jurisdiction to alter the revenue entry in
respect to the plot in dispute. He further
submitted that impugned orders have been
passed arbitrarily as such, the same are
liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned senior
counsel
for
the
respondent
No.
4
submitted that will deed in question is a
fictitious document. He further submitted
that earlier suit No. 333 of 2010 filed by
petitioner was an act of petitioner in order
to obtain fraudulent compromise decree.
He further submitted that compromise
decree is vague decree and the same
cannot be relied upon in any proceeding.
He further submitted that mutation of the
petitioner as well as contesting respondent
No. 4 has been rightly ordered by the
mutation court and petitioner have no right
to challenge the same before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the impugned order has been
passed in the summary proceedings as
such writ petition is not maintainable and
liable to be dismissed.
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. I have considered the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

10. Petitioner claims the right on the
basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002
executed by petitioner's father Vijay Prasad,
who died on 12.10.2009. According to
petitioner, compromise decree has been
passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333
of 2010, by which right has been given to
petitioner to get his name recorded in the
revenue record on the basis of registered will
deed dated 17.01.2002, although respondent
No. 4 is denying the validity of the decree of
civil court passed in Suit No. 333 of 2010 as
such, respondent No. 4 has filed subsequent
Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration to
the effect that plaintiff Deep Narayan Prasad
be declared legal heir of 1⁄2 share and will
deed dated 17.01.2002 be declared void and
ineffective, it is also prayed in the suit that
compromise decree dated 04.02.2015 passed
in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 be also declared
void and ineffective. The mutation court
initially passed the order for recording the
name of the petitioner only but subsequently
passed the order to record the name of the
petitioner as well as of respondent No.4 being
natural heir of declared Vijay Prasad.

11. Since, the Civil Suit No. 333 of
2010 filed by respondent No. 4 for
declaration and injunction has been decided
on the basis of compromise entered into
between Prem Chandra and Deep Narayan
and the suit was decided on the basis of
compromise application dated 02.01.2015.
The averments made in the paragraph No.4
of the compromise application dated
02.01.2015 is as under:-

"न्यायालय ग्रसग्रवल जज सीग्रनयर ग्रडवीजन
बग्रलया

मु.न. 333/10 96 क

प्रेमिन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण

4. एकरार व बयान मुझ वादी यह है ग्रक
çfroknh क सभी अग्रिकार हाग्रसल है ज ग्रपता
वादी क हाग्रसल थे। çfroknh अपना नाम
कागजात सरकारी में मुताग्रबक पोंजीकृत वसीयत
ग्रदनाोंक 17.01.2002 के अाािार पर दजि करा
लेंगे। इसमें मुझ वादी क क ई उज व एतराज न
ह गा। "

12. The oral statement of Prem Chand
(plaintiff) recorded in Suit No. 333 of 2010
is as under:-

"न्यायालय ग्रसग्रवल जज सीग्रनयर ग्रडवीजन
बग्रलया

मु.न. 333/10 94 क 2

प्रेमिन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण

ग्रदनाोंक -5-01-2015

सीक्षीः- प्रेमिन्द्र उम्र लगभग 50 वषि',
पेशे से दुकानदार/ पुत्र स्व. ग्रवजय प्रसाद सा.
ग्रिरोंजी छपरा परगना द्वाबा ग्रजला बग्रलया।

हलफनामा बयान ग्रकया गया है ग्रक-

ग्रवजय प्रसाद के द लड़के प्रेमिन्द्र व
दीपनारायण हैं। लालगोंज बाजार में हम ल ग ों
की दुकान है। उसे प्रेमिन्द्र िलाते हैं। ग्रपताजी
ने ज वसीयत ग्रकया था वह सही है। उसी
वसीयत के बावत मैंने मुकदमा ग्रकया था।
वसीयत में मेरे ग्रपता जी द्वारा ग्रदनाोंक 17-01-02
क रग्रजस्टडि दीपनारायण के पक्ष में ग्रलिा
गया था। अब गााँव के प्रग्रतग्रित व्यखक्त सुमेर
ग्रसोंह व सुनील ग्रसोंह की गवाहान से सुलह ह
गया है। सुलहनामे का कागज ज पोंि ों ने
ग्रलिा है, वह मेरे पास है। इस मुकदमे में मैंने
सुलहनामा दाखिल ग्रकया है, उसके अनुसार
मुकदमे का फैसला कर ग्रदया जाए।

सुनकर तसदीक ग्रकया गया है।

प्रेमिन्द्र प्रसाद

बयान मेरे ब लने पर is'kdkjद्वारा ग्रलिा
गया है।
1 All. Deep Narayan Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Alld. & Ors.
559

g0 & lh0 th0 ,l0 Mh0

05.01.2015"

13. The compromise application dated
02.01.2015
contains
very
specific
Paragraph No. 4 to the effect that defendant
Deep Narayan will get his name recorded
on the basis of registered will dated
17.01.2002 in the revenue records and the
plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no
objection regarding the same. In the oral
Statement of plaintiff Prem Chand dated
05.01.2015 he admitted the compromise
between
plaintiff
and
defendant
accordingly civil suit was decided on the
basis
of
compromise
decree
dated
02.01.2015. The operative portion of the
compromise decree passed by civil Court is
as follows:-

"न्यायालय ग्रसग्रवल जज सीग्रनयर ग्रडवीजन
बग्रलया

मु.न. 333/10 98 क1 98 क1

1 4

प्रेमिन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायण

" प्रेमिन्द्र प्रसाद उम्र अोंदाजी 45 वषि पुत्र
स्व. ग्रवजय प्रसाद उफि छ ट्कन प्रसाद, सा.
ग्रिरोंजी छपरा पत्रालय सूयिभानपुर, परगना द्वाबा
ग्रजला बग्रलया।

....वादी

बनाम

दीप नारायन प्रसाद उम्र अोंदाजी 52 वषि पुत्र स्व.
ग्रवजय प्रसाद उफि छ ट्कन प्रसाद, सा. ग्रिरोंजी
छपरा पत्रालय सूयिभानपुर, परगना द्वाबा ग्रजला
बग्रलया।

....प्रग्रतवादी आदेश

वादी का वाद पक्ष ों के बयानात एवों
कागजात ग्रदनाोंग्रकत 02.01.2015 में वग्रणित कथन
के आिार पर ग्रडिी ग्रकया जाता है। बयानात एवों
कागजात ग्रदनाोंग्रकत 02.01.2015 ग्रडिी का भाग
ह गा। उभय पक्ष अपना वाद व्यय स्वयों वहन
करेंगे।

ग्रदनाोंकः- 20-01-2015

(एस.एन.ग्रसोंह)

ग्रसग्रवल जज (वररि वगि),

बग्रलया।"

14. It is also relevant to mention that,
respondent No. 4 Prem Chandra instituted
Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration
and injunction to the effect that will deed
dated
17.01.2002
as
well
as
the
compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 be
declared
void
and
ineffective.
The
subsequent Suit No. 1037 of 2020 is still
pending for adjudication before the civil
court between the parties, the copy of the
plaint of Civil Suit No.1037 of 2020 has
been annexed by respondent No.4 himself
along with counter affidavit as Annexure
C.A.-1, the relief clause of plaint will be
relevant which is as follows:-

"न्ययालय ग्रसग्रवल जज (tw0 fM0) iwohZबग्रलया

okn la[;k 1037@2020

izsepUnz mez r[k0 55 lky iq= Lo0 fot;
izlkn mQZ NksVdu izlkn] xzke fpjath Nijk] iks0
lw;Zhkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck] ftyk cfy;kA\

oknh eks0 ua0 8896725495

cuke

nhi ukjk;.k izlkn mez r[k0 62 lky iq= Lo0
fot;k izlkn mQZ NksVdu izlkn] xzke fpjath Nijk]
iks0 lw;Zhkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck] ftyk cfy;k

"11- उपर क्त वादी ग्रनम्नग्रलखित अनुत ष पाने
का अग्रिकारी हैः-

अ- यह ग्रक ग्रडिी घ षणात्मक वहक वादी
खिलाफ प्रग्रतवादी पाररत ग्रकया जाये ग्रक वादी
सम्पग्रि ग्रजसका ग्रववरण वाद पत्र के अन्त में ग्रदया
गया है का वरासतन वकदर 1⁄2 का ग्रहस्सेदार है तथा
यह भी घ ग्रषत ग्रकया जावे ग्रक वसीयतनामा ग्रदनाोंक
07.01.2002 एवों ग्रदनाोंक 17.01.2002 ग्रनष्पादक स्व.
ग्रवजय प्रसाद उफि छ ट्कन वहक प्रग्रतवादी शून्य व
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ग्रनष्प्रभावी है तथा यह उद्घ ग्रषत ग्रकया जावे ग्रक
सुलहनामा ग्रडिी ग्रदनाोंक 04.02.2015 पाररत
न्यायालय ग्रसग्रवल जज (सी.डी.) बग्रलया मु.नों.
333/2010 प्रेमिन्द्र बनाम दीपनारायन प्रसाद शून्य व
ग्रनष्प्रभावी है तथा उक्त ग्रडिी का असर वादी के
राईट्, ट्ाइग्रट्ल व इन्रेस्ट पर नहीों पड़ता है।

ब- यह ग्रक वजररये हुक्म इम्तनाई दवामी
प्रग्रतवादी क मना ग्रकया जावे ग्रक उपर क्त द न
वसीयतनामा ग्रदनाोंक 07.01.2002 व 17.01.2002
ग्रनष्पादक ग्रवजय प्रसाद उफि छ ट्कन वहक
प्रग्रतवादी के आिार पर जायदाद ग्रजसका ग्रववरण
वाद पत्र के अन्त में ग्रदया गया है के हक व ग्रहस्सा
वकदर 1⁄2 भाग के अनुसार वादी के कब्जा दिल में
न त ग्रकसी भी प्रकार से क ई मुजाग्रहमत करे न
कराये न उसके ग्रकसी भाग का ग्रविी करे न ग्रकसी
प्रकार का अोंतरण करे न ही क ई ऐसा कायि करे
ग्रजससे उक्त सम्पूणि जायदाद पर हम वादी के तन्हा
कब्जा दिल में क ई मुजाग्रहमत व व्यविान न डाले।

स- यह ग्रक ििाि मुकदमा हम वादी क
प्रग्रतवादी से ग्रदलवा ग्रदया जावे।

द- यह कि अलावे ख्वाह बजाय दादरसी
बाला िे कजस किसी दीगर दादरसी िे मुश्तहि
हम वादी वनजदीि राय अदालत िरार पाये
जावे उसिी भी किक्री वहि वादी कवरूद्ध
प्रकतवादी साकदर फरमायी जावे।"

15. In view of the aforementioned fact
that decree of civil court dated 20.01.2015 has
not been recalled/set aside/modified by any
Court as such, the name of the petitioner could
not be expunged from the revenue records
unless the decree of the civil court dated
20.01.2015 is recalled/set aside/modified.

16. The courts below in exercise of
power under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act arbitrarily ordered vide order
dated 17.05.2018 for recording the name of
respondent No. 4 along with petitioner and
expunged the name of the petitioner, who was
recorded
exclusively
on
the
basis
of
compromise decree of Civil Court dated
20.01.2015 in place of their father Vijay
Prasad. The order of Tehsildar dated
17.05.2018 has been maintained in appeal and
revision arbitrarily, which is against the order
passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333
of 2010.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances the case, the impugned order
dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 1
Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, order
dated 31.12.2018 passed by respondent No. 2
Up-Ziladhikari, Bairiya, District-Ballia and
order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent
No. 3- Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bairiya, District-
Ballia are liable to be set aside and are hereby
set aside.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.

19. Respondents are directed to record
the name of the petitioner in the revenue
records on the basis of compromise decree
dated 20.01.2015 passed by civil court in Civil
Suit No. 333 of 2010, which shall be subject to
the final adjudication of subsequent Civil Suit
No.1037 of 2020 filed by respondent No.4 in
the civil court at Ballia.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 560
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-A No. 3985 of 2018

Jagdish Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents