# Meena Jaiswal v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-15
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 12304 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meena-jaiswal-v-indian-oil-corp-ltd-varanasi-49309
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law -Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
Section 26 - Indian Oil Corporation
Guidelines for Selection of Dealers -
Clause 4(v), Clause 14E(ix) and (x) -
Rectification
Deed
-
Retail
Outlet
Dealership - Eligibility Criteria - Natural
Justice
The petitioner, Meena Jaiswal, challenged the
Indian Oil Corporation's order dated 30.03.2021,
rejecting her candidature for a retail outlet
dealership under the OBC category due to
incorrect land dimensions in the lease deed,
despite a rectification deed dated 01.02.2019
correcting the error.

Held: (1) The writ petition was allowed, and the
impugned order dated 30.03.2021 was quashed.
(2) The rectification deed, correcting minor
dimensional errors in the lease deed dated
24.12.2018 without altering the land's identity,
boundaries, or area, related back to the original
lease deed's date under Section 26 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. (3) The respondent-Corporation
erred in rejecting the petitioner's candidature under
Group 1, as the Guidelines permit rectification of
curable
deficiencies,
including
post-application
amendments like sub-lease provisions, under
Clauses 4(v)(b) and 14E(ix) and (x). (4) The
petitioner's initial application correctly St.d the
required dimensions (35m x 35m), and the
rectification deed, submitted before field verification,
complied with the Guidelines. (5) The Corporation's
failure to consider the rectification deed and provide
a hearing violated natural justice. (6) The
respondent-Corporation was directed to proceed
with field verification of the petitioner's credentials
within six weeks and finalize the dealership process
per the Guidelines.

## Text

1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14.

With
these
observations,
accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 12304 of 2021

Meena Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinayak Mithal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Pramod Kumar Rai

Civil Law -Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
Section 26 - Indian Oil Corporation
Guidelines for Selection of Dealers -
Clause 4(v), Clause 14E(ix) and (x) -
Rectification
Deed
-
Retail
Outlet
Dealership - Eligibility Criteria - Natural
Justice
The petitioner, Meena Jaiswal, challenged the
Indian Oil Corporation's order dated 30.03.2021,
rejecting her candidature for a retail outlet
dealership under the OBC category due to
incorrect land dimensions in the lease deed,
despite a rectification deed dated 01.02.2019
correcting the error.

Held: (1) The writ petition was allowed, and the
impugned order dated 30.03.2021 was quashed.
(2) The rectification deed, correcting minor
dimensional errors in the lease deed dated
24.12.2018 without altering the land's identity,
boundaries, or area, related back to the original
lease deed's date under Section 26 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. (3) The respondent-Corporation
erred in rejecting the petitioner's candidature under
Group 1, as the Guidelines permit rectification of
curable
deficiencies,
including
post-application
amendments like sub-lease provisions, under
Clauses 4(v)(b) and 14E(ix) and (x). (4) The
petitioner's initial application correctly St.d the
required dimensions (35m x 35m), and the
rectification deed, submitted before field verification,
complied with the Guidelines. (5) The Corporation's
failure to consider the rectification deed and provide
a hearing violated natural justice. (6) The
respondent-Corporation was directed to proceed
with field verification of the petitioner's credentials
within six weeks and finalize the dealership process
per the Guidelines.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,
J.)

FACTS :

1. An advertisement was issued on
25.11.2018, by the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, inviting applications for appointment
of retail outlet dealers in various districts of
Uttar Pradesh. The dispute in the instant case
relates to the retail outlet dealership between
Km. Stone 18 to 23 on State Highway (SH)
87, Varanasi, Bhadohi Road (Sl. No. 1023),
reserved for OBC Category. The application
was to be submitted online on the website
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in. The last
date for submission of the application form
along
with
non-refundable
fee
was
24.12.2018.

2. The petitioner submitted online
application for the said dealership on
24.12.2018 along with requisite fee under
OBC Category.

3. The petitioner offered land of
Gata no. 667, Village Gaurai, Pargana
Kaswar, Tehsil Raja Talab, District
Varanasi, admeasuring 1328.99 sq. meters,
located between Km. Stone 18 to 23 on
State Highway (SH) 87, Varanasi, Bhadohi
Road, as required in terms of the
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi
1155
advertisement. The said land was taken by
the petitioner on lease from its owner for a
period of 19 years 11 months by registered
lease deed dated 24.12.2018.

4. As per norms, the minimum
dimension of the offered land was to be 35
meters x 35 meters, equivalent to 1225 sq.
mts

5. The petitioner in her online
application disclosed the dimensions of the
offered land as 35 meters x 35 meters. The
case of the petitioner is that the dimensions
of the land offered was more than the
specified norms, i.e. 35.35 meters (116
feet) x 37.56 meters (123.25 feet), but by
inadvertence, it came to be mentioned as
33.528 meters (110 feet) x 39.624 meters
(130 feet) in the lease deed. As soon as the
mistake was discovered, the petitioner got
the same corrected through a rectification
deed (titimma) dated 29.1.2019 (registered
on 1.2.2019).

6. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that as a result thereof, there was
no change in identity of the demised land.
Only the dimensions which were wrongly
recorded in the original lease deed were
corrected. The boundaries remained the
same.

7. The petitioner was selected in the
draw of lots and she was intimated by the
respondent-Corporation by letter dated
26.9.2019 to deposit Rs. 40,000/- towards
initial security deposit and submit all
documents for scrutiny.

8. In pursuance of intimation letter,
the petitioner submitted the original lease
deed
dated
24.12.2018
as
well
as
rectification deed dated 29.1.2019/1.2.2019
along with other documents on 17.10.2019.

9. On 23.6.2020, the petitioner
received an e-mail from the respondentCorporation
informing
her
that
her
candidature had been rejected. The ground
for rejection, as mentioned in paragraph 3
of the communication is as follows: -

".................... lease executed
for Gata no. 667 having dimensions of 130
ft x 110 ft which does not meet minimum
advertised criterion of 35m x 35m."

10. The petitioner was informed that
her candidature was found ineligible in
Group 1 and now she would be considered
for selection along with Group 3 applicants
as per guidelines.

11. The specific case of the petitioner
is that before cancelling her candidature,
she was not afforded any opportunity of
hearing.
The
respondents
completely
overlooked the rectification deed dated
29.1.2019 wherefrom it was evident that
there was mistake in the dimensions of the
demised land in the original lease deed and
the same was corrected subsequently and
much before the respondents required the
petitioner to submit the documents for
verification. Consequently, the petitioner
made a representation on 26.6.2020 giving
complete facts. When no heed was paid to
the same, she filed Writ Petition No.
12745 of 2020. It was allowed by order
dated 8.9.2020 and the order of the
respondent-Corporation dated 26.3.2020
was
quashed.
The
respondentCorporation was directed to pass a fresh
reasoned
and
speaking
order
after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

12. One of the findings recorded by
this Court in the previous judgment is as
follows: -
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"13. The lease deed for a period
of 19 years & 11 months was executed on
24.12.2018 mentioning the dimensions of
the land as 116 feet (35.35 meters) x 123.3
feet (37.56 meters). The material on record
shows that inadvertently, the dimensions
offered were wrongly mentioned, which
were rectified by executing a rectification
lease deed on 01.02.2019 and the petitioner
has submitted all the documents for
verification along with other documents on
17.10.2019. The respondent - Corporation
before passing the impugned order ought to
have verified the same and should have
applied its mind. Without assigning any
reason, the Corporation was not justified in
passing the impugned order."

13. In compliance of the above
direction,
the
respondent-Corporation
passed a fresh order on 30.3.2021 and
refused to rely on the titimma dated
1.2.2019 on the sole ground that it was
executed after filing of the application
whereas, the petitioner should have had
"land of the required dimensions" on the
date of the application. Aggrieved thereby,
the instant petition has been filed.

14. The respondent-Corporation has
filed a counter affidavit and in which the
stand taken in the impugned order has been
reiterated. It is mentioned in paragraph 25
of the counter affidavit that the land offered
along with the application form was not
having the specified dimensions, i.e. 35
meters x 35 meters. The titimma obtained
by the petitioner would be of no help to her
as the eligibility was to be assessed with
reference to the date on which application
was filed. Reliance has been placed on
Clause 4 (v)(l) of the brochure.

SUBMISSIONS :

15. Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned decision of the respondentCorporation is manifestly illegal as the
rectification
deed
(titimma)
dated
1.02.2019 would relate back to the date of
execution of the original lease deed i.e.
24.12.2018. The rectification deed was
executed only to correct an inadvertent
error. The property demised thereunder has
not undergone any change as the total area,
sale consideration, the boundaries of all
four sides remained the same. It is urged
that the scrutiny and verification of
documents is carried out at the stage of
Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) and
since in the instant case, by that time,
correction had already been carried out in
the original lease deed, therefore, there was
no occasion to reject the candidature. He
further submits that the guidelines itself
provide for making amendments in the
original lease deed in certain cases and
which goes to show that the respondents
themselves permit rectification of the
defects in the lease deed.

16. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent-Corporation
submitted that the eligibility of a candidate
is to be ascertained as on the date of filing
of the application. The application form
was submitted by the petitioner online on
24.12.2018. The lease deed, which is also
of the same date, mentions the dimensions
of the demised land to be 33.528 meters x
39.624 meters and thus it was not
according to the prescribed norm - 35
meters x 35 meters. The subsequent
rectification would not enure to the benefit
of the petitioner. The candidature of the
petitioner was, therefore, rightly rejected.

ANALYSIS :
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi
1157

17. The moot question is whether the
petitioner is entitled to benefit of the
rectification deed or not and whether it
would relate back to the date of the original
lease deed.

SELECTION PROCEDURE -

18. The selection is governed by the
'Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for
Regular and Retail Outlets through Draw of
Lots/Bidding
Process'
(for
short
'Guidelines').

19. Clause 4 (v) specifies the type of
land that can be offered, and based on it,
the applicants have been classified in three
different groups, which are as follows:-

Group 1: Applicants having
suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area either by way of ownership
/ long term lease for a period of
minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group 2: Applicants having Firm
Offer for a suitable piece of land for
purchase or long term lease for a period of
minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group 3: Applicants who have
not offered land in the application.

20. The other conditions, inter alia,
with respect to offer of land are as
follows:-

a)
The
land
should
be
available with the applicant as on the
date of application and should have
minimum lease of 19 years and 11
months (as advertised by respective oil
company) from the date or after the date
of advertisement but not later than the
date of application.

b) If the offered land is on Long
term lease, then the Lease agreement
should have a provision to sub-lease the
land wherever the locations are advertised
under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS), Other
Corporation Owned Sites ("A"/ "CC" sites).

In case it is observed that the
lease agreement for the land offered by
the selected applicant does not have a
provision to sub-lease the land, in such
cases the selected applicant would be
provided 21 days' time from the date of
intimation through SMS/e-mall to make
suitable amendment / addendum to the
lease agreement and submit the same to
the concerned OMC.

............................

The applicant(s) under Group1 should have documents to establish
ownership of land offered for the
Dealership as on date of application,
such as: -

.......................

Registered Lease deed for a
minimum period of 19 years and 11 months
(as advertised by respective oil company).

....................

l) It should be the responsibility
of the applicant to ensure that as on date
of application: -

i. Offered land is of required
dimension
and
abutting
the
Road
boundary, after leaving Right of Way
(ROW) line of the road.
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

..................

m)
Verification
of
the
supporting documents submitted by the
selected candidate, post selection, will be
carried out at the time of Scrutiny / Field
Verification of Credentials (FVC).

21. Few more clauses of the
guidelines
relevant
for
deciding
the
controversy are as follows:-

14 - SELECTION PROCEDURE

E. Application:

Applications are to be submitted
only through on-line mode on prescribed
web
portal
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.

All applicants desirous to apply
shall submit their applications by visiting
web
portal
www.petrolpumpdealerchavan.in
after
registering on the same and submitting
their application form online, along with
requisite application fee (to be submitted
through Internet banking, credit card or
debit card through the payment Gateway
provided by SBI e-Pay).

The
applicant
will
have
to
register
in
the
web
portal
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in
for
creating a login id and password. The login
id and password once created for an
applicant will be used for filling of on-line
application
in
the
web
portal.
Acknowledgement
of
successful
registration
on
the
web
portal
www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in will be
sent by the portal through SMS/e-mail.

...................

viii. Scrutiny of the documents
would be carried out only after receipt of
10% of the Security Deposit (Initial
Security Deposit).

ix.
In
case
of
rectifiable
deficiency in the documents submitted,
intimation to the selected candidate to
submit
the
required
corrected
documents within 21 days.

x.
In
case
the
rectified
documents (for cases other than related
to offered land) are not submitted within
stipulated time or the submitted rectified
documents are not as per requirement,
intimation regarding rejection of his
candidature will be sent to the selected
candidate.
However,
if
documents
related to offered land are not submitted
or the offered land cannot be accepted
even after receiving rectified documents
relating to land, the applicant will be
given intimation regarding consideration
of his/her candidature alongwith Group
3 applicants.

xii. In case land is not found
suitable by LEC, intimation to the
candidate regarding rejection of the offered
land and subsequent consideration of
candidature along with Group 3 applicants.

Land offered by the Petitioner -

22. The petitioner offered the land
which she had taken on lease for a period
of 19 years 11 months and, therefore, her
candidature was considered alongwith
Group 1 applicants. She was declared
successful and by letter of intimation dated
26.09.2019, she was required to remit
online a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards initial
security deposit and submit the documents
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi
1159
listed therein which inter alia, included
copy of land documents in support of lease
rights. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied
the
original
lease
deed
alongwith
rectification deed.

23. As per Clause 4 (v) (m), the
verification of documents post selection
was to be carried out at the time of
scrutiny/field verification of credentials.
Before that it was also not possible, as
under the Guidelines, application forms
were to be filed by online mode and along
with which, documents were not required
to be attached. Indisputably, much before
the said stage arrived, the petitioner had got
the error corrected. The petitioner was
having the rectification deed and which she
duly submitted alongwith other documents
in compliance of the letter of the
respondent-Corporation dated 26.09.2019.

Rectification Deed -

24. The dimensions of the plot
mentioned in lease deed dated 24.12.2018
was 110 feet (33.528 mts) x 130 feet
(39.624 mts)

equal to 1328.5 sq. mts. It was
bounded as follows: -

East : Chak Road,

West : Chak Nali

North : Remaining land of the
lessor

South : Varanasi - Bhadohi Road

25. As a result of rectification, only
depth of the plot (North - South) has been
corrected from 130 feet to 123 feet 3 inch
(37.56 mts) and the frontage (East - West)
from 110 feet to 116 feet (35.35 mts).
Pertinent to note is that the eastern
boundary earlier was chak road and the
western boundary was chak nali and even
after the frontage was corrected from 110
feet to 117 feet, the eastern and western
boundaries remained same. The minor
correction did not affect the situation of the
land. The area remained virtually unaltered.
Consequently, there was no change in the
premium or lease rent. This lends support
to the plea that on actual measurement, the
mistake in the dimensions as originally
recorded in the lease deed was noticed and
the same was corrected at the earliest with
the execution of the rectification deed.

Position in Law -

26. The parties to an instrument or a
contract can always correct the mistake in
the documents by executing a rectification
deed. It can also be done through the
instrumentality of the court in terms of
Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Relevant part of Section 26 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 is extracted below for
convenience of reference: -

26. When instrument may be
rectified. - (1) When, through fraud or a mutual
mistake of the parties, a contract or other
instrument in writing not being the articles of
association of a company to which the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies does
not express their real intention, then -

(a) either party or his representative
in interest may institute a suit to have the
instrument rectified; or

(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in
which any right arising under the instrument
is in issue, claim in his pleading that the
instrument be rectified; or
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(c) a defendant in any such suit as
is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition
to any other defence open to him, ask for
rectification of the instrument.

(2) If, any suit in which a contract
or other instrument is sought to be rectified
under sub-section (1), the court finds that
the instrument, through fraud or mistake,
does not express the real intention of the
parties, the court may, in its discretion,
direct rectification of the instrument so as
to express that intention, so far as this can
be done without prejudice to rights
acquired by third persons in good faith and
for value.

(3) A contract in writing may first
be rectified, and then if the party claiming
rectification has so prayed in his pleading
and the court thinks fit, may be specifically
enforced.

In such a suit, the court is
empowered to direct rectification of the
instrument so as to express real intention of
the parties, provided it can be done without
prejudice to the rights acquired by third
persons in good faith and for value.

27. In the instant case, as noted
above, there was only minor correction in
the dimensions, without any change in
the
land
actually
offered
for
the
dealership. In law, there is no illegality
attached to the rectification deed as it is
duly recognised mode of carrying out
correction in documents to reflect true
intent of the parties. It is not even the
case of the respondent-Corporation that
the rectification deed is in any manner
invalid.

Any absolute bar to accept
documents after date of application -

28. Under the Guidelines, as noted,
the applicants have been classified in three
groups. Those applicants who already have
suitable piece of land to offer, whether self
owned or on lease, were placed in Group I.
Those who didn't had ownership or
leasehold rights in the land, but were
having firm offer, were placed in Group II.
The remaining were to fall in Group III.

29. The object of Clauses 4(v) (a), (d),
(l) of the Guidelines was to ensure that only
those qualify under Group I who were
having self owned/leasehold land on the
date of application. If any applicant obtains
ownership/leasehold right for the first time
on basis of any document obtained after
filing of the application form, he/she would
fall in Group II. Such an applicant would
not be eligible under Group I.

30. As the purpose of executing a
rectification deed is to express real
intention of the parties, it generally relates
back to the date of execution of the original
contract/instrument, provided it does not
affect right of any third party. The
Guidelines, more particularly those referred
to above, does not put any complete bar in
accepting a document, executed after date
of filing of the application, even for Group
I applicants. In some situations, Guidelines
itself
contemplates
acceptance
of
documents executed after filing of the
application by Group I applicants. One
such instance is contemplated under Clause
4(v)(b) where the lease agreement does not
have a provision to sub-lease the land. In
such cases, 21 days time is provided to the
selected applicant to get the lease deed
amended, incorporating a provision therein
to sub-lease the land, albeit such a right
being a legally recognized right under
Section 108 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 [Clauses 4 (v) (b) and 14 E (ix)].
10 All. Meena Jaiswal Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., Varanasi
1161
There could be several such curable or
rectifiable
deficiencies,
which
upon
correction, would not change the basic
nature of the document or its subject
matter. For instance, there could be mistake
in spelling or figures or wrong description
of line of succession of the transferor, etc.
It could take the shape of some minor
mistake in description of property which
upon correction, does not result in change
in the property conveyed or transferred.
These changes would not have the effect of
modifying, changing or altering the original
offer of land. Such changes would be
covered under Clause 14-E(ix) and (x) of
the Guidelines which itself contemplates
grant of opportunity to the applicant to
correct 'rectifiable deficiency' at the stage
of scrutiny of documents.

31. Thus, in limited cases, where the
defect is of a curable nature, without
materially changing the offer of land
originally
made,
rectification
is
permissible. The Guidelines does not
conceive any absolute bar in acceptance of
documents after filing the application,
rather itself comprehends various situations
where rectification deed was acceptable.

CONCLUSION -

32. In the original application form,
there was no mistake in mentioning the
dimensions, as the petitioner had clearly
stated that the land offered by her was
having depth and frontage as per
required norms, i.e. 35 meters each. At
the next stage i.e., at the stage of filing
of
documents
and
affidavit,
the
petitioner gave specific details of the
frontage and depth as per rectification
deed which were according to the
prescribed
norms.
The
respondentCorporation was supplied the original
lease deed and rectification deed at
same point of time, in pursuance of the
letter dated 26.9.2019.

33. The correction made in the
original lease deed did not result in any
material change in the offer originally
made. The rectification carried out was
fully permissible under the enabling
provisions of the Guidelines. The
respondent-Corporation committed an
apparent illegality in harbouring under
a wrong impression that in no case,
rectification deed obtained after filing
of the application was acceptable under
the Guidelines in case of Group I
applicants. In our considered opinion,
the
minor
changes
made
by
the
rectification deed did not materially
affect the offer of land made at the
initial stage and would therefore fall
under Clause 14E(ix) and (x) of the
Guidelines.
Consequently,
the
impugned decision as contained in
order dated 30.3.2021 is held to be
illegal and is quashed.

34. It being an admitted position
that the dealership for the site in
question has yet not been finalized in
view of interim order passed in the
instant petition, there would be no
impediment in directing the respondentCorporation to proceed further in the
matter
from
the
stage
of
field
verification of the credentials of the
petitioner and take it to its logical
conclusion in terms of the Guidelines
within a period of six weeks from the
date of communication of the instant
order. We order accordingly.

35. The writ petition stands allowed.

36. No order as to costs.
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1162
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 22675 of 2023

Praful Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Section 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section
92
Proviso
(4)
-
Mutation
Proceedings
-
Registered
Will
-
Unregistered Will - Civil Suit - Natural
Justice
The petitioner, Praful Kumar Singh, challenged
the Tehsildar's order dated 12.11.2018, allowing
mutation in favor of respondent no. 4, Usha
Singh, based on a registered will dated
23.12.1992, and the Revisional Court's order
dated 21.11.2022, dismissing the petitioner's
revision.
The
petitioner
relied
on
an
unregistered will dated 09.01.1993 and a
compromise during mutation proceedings.

Held: (1) The writ petition was dismissed,
upholding the impugned orders. (2) The
Tehsildar's mutation order in favor of Usha
Singh, based on the registered will, was valid,
as it was supported by evidence and not
cancelled legally. (3) The unregistered will and
alleged compromise could not override the
registered will, as per Section 92 Proviso (4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars parol
evidence to modify or rescind a registered
document, as clarified in S. Saktivel Vs M.
Venugopal Pillai. (4) The petitioner's pending
civil suit (No. 221 of 2021) for declaring the
registered will null and void is the appropriate
remedy, and mutation orders are subject to the
civil court's adjudication, as per Jitendra Singh
Vs St. of Madhya Pradesh. (5) No interference
was warranted in the summary mutation
proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901. (6) The petitioner was
granted liberty to pursue the civil suit to
establish his claim.

Case Law Cited:

1. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2021 (0)
Supreme (SC) 487;

2. S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.R.s Vs M. Venugopal
Pillai & ors., 2000 (91) RD 615;

3. Smt. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue & ors.,
(2022) 155 R.D. 169.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha,
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Gyanendra Pratap Singh for respondent
no.4 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one
Gajraj Singh was the recorded tenure
holder of the plot in dispute. Gajraj Singh
has alleged to execute a registered will
deed on 23.12.1992 in favour of Usha
Singh. On 9.1.1993.,Gajraj Singh has
alleged to execute another unregistered will
deed on 9.1.1993 in favour of his nephew-
Digvijay Singh and others. Tehsildar
initially allowed the mutation in favour of
Vijay Bahadur and others vide order dated
15.7.1993 but later on the order for
mutation dated 15.7.1993 was recalled and
fresh order was passed on 12.11.2018 in