# Smt. Sanwari Devi v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 558
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002187 of 2004
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sanwari-devi-v-addl-commissioner-judicial-faizabad-ors-51439
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar
Singh, Prabhat
Kumar, R.L. Ojha, Ram Shiromani Pandey,
Vinay Kumar Mishra, Virendra Kumar
Shukla

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Land
Revenue
Act,1901Section
34-dispute
over
property
inheritance based on conflicting wills
2 All. Smt. Sanwari Devi Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
559
executed by the deceased, Dharamraji,
and the subsequent mutation proceedings
under section 34 to the Land revenue actThe petitioner relied on a registered will
dated 19.07.1994, while the respondents
presented an earlier unregistered will
dated 28.05.1994-A discrepancy in the
recorded date of death of the testator
further
complicated
the
matter-The
petitioner failed to prove the registered
will
before
the
authorities
due
to
procedural lapses and non-participation in
ex-parte proceedings-Both appellate and
revisional authorities upheld the rejection
of the mutation application, citing failure
to prove the will as per Section 68 of the
Indian
Evidence
Act
and
irregular
correction of the death date-The High
Court
reiterated
that
mutation
proceedings are summary in nature and
do not determine title-It dismissed the
writ petition, holding that the petitioner
retains the liberty to seek remedies
through civil courts to resolve substantive
property rights.(Para 1 to 26)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and section 17 of the Indian Registration
Act is that a contract for sale in respect of
immovable property of the value of more
than
one
hundred
rupees
without
registration cannot extinguish the equity of
redemption. In India it is only on execution
of the conveyance and registration of
transfer of the mortgagor?s interest by
registered instrument that the mortgagor?s
right of redemption will be extinguished.
The conferment of power to sell without
intervention of the Court in a Mortgage
Deed by itself will not deprive the
mortgagor of his right to redemption. The
extinction of the right of redemption has to
be subsequent to the deed conferring such
power. The right of redemption is not
extinguished at the expiry of the period.
The
equity
of
redemption
is
not
extinguished by mere contract for sale.

The mortgagor?s right to redeem
will survive until there has been completion
of sale by the mortagee by a registered
deed. In England a sale of property takes
place by agreement but it is not so in our
country. The power to sell shall not be
exercised unless and until notice in writing
requiring payment of the principal money
has been served on the mortgagor. Further
section 69(3) of the Transfer of Property
Act shows that when a sale has been made
in professed exercise of such a power, the
title of the purchaser shall not be
impeachable on the ground that no case
had arisen to authorise the sale. Therefore,
until the sale is complete by registration the
mortgagor
does
not
lose
right
of
redemption."

21. In the aforesaid judgment
Supreme Court has held that right of
redemption would only exist till the date
when sale is complete. In the present case
as we have already noticed the sale deed
was registered in favour of respondent No.5
on 7.1.2004 and consequently even as per
the judgment of Supreme Court the right of
redemption if any in favour of the
petitioner stand extinguished on the date of
the said auction. There is no law or rule
which has been demonstrated by the
petitioner
to
indicate
that
right
of
redemption vested even after execution of
sale deed and also considering the fact that
neither the sale deed nor the sale certificate
issued in favour of respondent No.5 has
been challenged in the present proceedings
accordingly there is no infirmity in the
order passed by Commissioner confirming
the auction in favour of respondent No.5.

22. For the aforesaid reasons, there is
no merit in the writ petition which is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 558
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.02.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1002187 of 2004

Smt. Sanwari Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K. Tewari, Ram Kushal Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar
Singh, Prabhat
Kumar, R.L. Ojha, Ram Shiromani Pandey,
Vinay Kumar Mishra, Virendra Kumar
Shukla

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Land
Revenue
Act,1901Section
34-dispute
over
property
inheritance based on conflicting wills
2 All. Smt. Sanwari Devi Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
559
executed by the deceased, Dharamraji,
and the subsequent mutation proceedings
under section 34 to the Land revenue actThe petitioner relied on a registered will
dated 19.07.1994, while the respondents
presented an earlier unregistered will
dated 28.05.1994-A discrepancy in the
recorded date of death of the testator
further
complicated
the
matter-The
petitioner failed to prove the registered
will
before
the
authorities
due
to
procedural lapses and non-participation in
ex-parte proceedings-Both appellate and
revisional authorities upheld the rejection
of the mutation application, citing failure
to prove the will as per Section 68 of the
Indian
Evidence
Act
and
irregular
correction of the death date-The High
Court
reiterated
that
mutation
proceedings are summary in nature and
do not determine title-It dismissed the
writ petition, holding that the petitioner
retains the liberty to seek remedies
through civil courts to resolve substantive
property rights.(Para 1 to 26)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Gauri Dutt. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.. -Writ-C No.
21014 of 2021

2. Hadisul Nisha Vs Addl. Commr. (Judicial), AIR
Online 2021 All 2060

3. Mahesh Kumar Juneja & ors.. Vs Addl.
Commr (Judicial) Moradabad Div. & ors..
(2020)3 ADJ 104

4. Harish Chandra Vs U.O.I. & ors.. (2019)5 ADJ
212

5. U.O.I. & ors.. Vs Vasavi Co-op. Housing Socy.
Ltd. & ors.. MANU/SC/ 0001/ 2014

6. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) thru L.R.
Vs
Arthur
Imp.
&
Exp.
Co.
&
ors..
MANU/SC/O112/2019

7. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of M.P. & ors.., SLP ©
No. 13146 of 2021

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Kushal Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for respondent
nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos. 4 to 8 and Sri Pankaj
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent nos. 9 to 13.

2. The dispute involved in the resent
case is with regard to the two will deeds
purportedly made by one Dharamraji. One
of the will deed which is unregistered was
made in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 8
who are the sons of the sisters of
Dharamraji, while on the other hand
another will is said to have been executed
on 19.07.1994, which is registered in
favour of petitioner alongwith respondent
nos, 9 to 13, all of whom are daughters of
Dharamraji.

3. The dispute in the present case
pertains to the date of death of Dharamraji.
According to the petitioner Dharamraji is
said to have died on 30.09.1994, but date of
her death was wrongly recorded by the
Registrar of Birth and Death as 30.06.1994.
Smt. Sanwari Devi - petitioner has moved
an application under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act before the Tehsildar for
mutation of the property bequeathed by
Dharamraji in favour of petitioner and her
sisters namely respondent nos. 9 to 13. In
the said proceedings objections were filed
on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8 who
also
produced
a
will
executed
by
Dharamraji on 28.05.1994, stating that
Dharamraji had executed the said will in
their
favour
while
contesting
the
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application of the petitioner stating that on
the face of it the said will has been
executed 19 days after death of Dharamraji
and consequently registered document
cannot be believed.

4. Before the competent authority,
under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act
no appearance was made by Dharamraji
after filing the registered will and after
recording statement of one of the witness of
the said will. The statement of the attesting
witness was duly recorded but no cross
examination was made thereafter. It is in
the
aforesaid
circumstances
that
proceedings before the competent authority
proceeded ex-parte. The application was
moved on behalf of petitioner for recall of
the ex-parte order which was allowed on
02.01.1997 and despite the said application
being allowed, no appearance was made on
behalf of petitioner-applicants and again
orders were passed for proceeding ex-parte
on 26.05.1997, 21.02.1998 and 31.03.1998
and the application was rejected by order
dated 31.03.1998.

5. Against the order of rejection of
application, petitioner had moved an appeal
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kadipur, Sultanpur. It is before the
appellate authority that all the documents
were filed by the petitioner who was
staking
claim
over
the
property of
Dharamraji on the basis of registered will
dated 19.07.1994.

6. Before the appellate authority it
was submitted that on noticing the
defect/infirmity in the date of death of
Dharamraji, an application was moved
which has been allowed by means of order
dated 13.08.1998 and the date of death of
Dharamraji in the Register of Birth and
Death
has
now
been
recorded
as
13.08.1998
and
consequently,
it
is
submitted that there is no infirmity in the
will which is registered in favour of
petitioner on 11.07.1994.

7. The appellate authority while
considering the submissions made on
behalf of petitioner rejected the contention,
observing that correction was not validly
and legally made with regard to date of
death
of
Dharamraji.
The
appellate
authority was of the considered view that
correction, if any, in the Register of Birth
and Death could have been made only
pursuant to approval of a First Class
Magistrate and same could not be done by
the Registrar on his own accord. While
returning such finding the appellate
authority has relied upon Section 13 of
the U.P. Registration of Birth and Death
Act, 1969. He further held that the
petitioner by her own conduct had
failed to adduce any evidence and did
not prosecute the matter before the
competent authority. The matter was
proceeded ex-parte and in the aforesaid
circumstances did not find any ground
for interference with the order of
competent authority and rejected the
appeal filed by the petitioner by means
of order dated 06.07.2002.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated
06.07.2002, passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, the petitioner preferred revision
before
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad.
Before the revisional authority entire
evidence
was
again
reapprised.
The
revisional authority also looked into the
entire record and affirmed the findings of
the appellate authority and held that the
petitioner was not able to prove the will
which was filed in support of the
application under Section 34 of the Land
2 All. Smt. Sanwari Devi Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
561
Revenue Act and consequently dismissed
the revision.

9. Before this Court, learned counsel
for the petitioner has vehemently submitted
that main issue in the present case is with
regard to the proving of registered will
before the competent authority, appellate
authority as well as revisional authority. He
has submitted that undoubtedly, before the
competent authority the will was filed and
only one attesting witness was produced
but he could not be cross examined due to
non appearance on behalf of petitioner, the
matter was decided ex-parte. The petitioner
does not contest the fact that application for
recall was allowed and even thereafter no
appearance was made on behalf of
petitioner before the competent authority
and in absence of any evidence having been
lead in support of the registered will, the
competent authority had rejected the
application of the petitioner.

10. It is submitted that before the
appellate authority all the material was
produced including the corrected date of
birth of Dharamraji, but the appellate
authority has erroneously returned finding
that correction in the Register of birth and
death may only be made only after
approval of a Magistrate Ist Class. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
as per Section 15 of the U.P. Registration of
Birth and Death Act, 1969, it has to be
demonstrated before the Registrar that in
the register kept with him, erroneously an
entry has been made fraudulently and on
demonstrating the aforesaid power is vested
with the Registrar of Birth and Death to
correct or cancel such an entry by suitable
entry in the margin of the said register
without making any alteration in the
original entry. It is stated that approval of
Magistrate Ist Class would be required only
as per Section 13 of the Act, 1969 where
there is delay in information given with
regard to birth and death. It is submitted
that the present case do not fall under
Section 13 and only in exercise of power
vested under Section 15 an application was
moved for correction of date of death of
Dharamraji and consequently the finding
recorded by the appellate authority in this
regard are infirm and deserve to be
interfered with.

11. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the revisional
authority while affirming the order of
competent authority and appellate authority
has also failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in him and accordingly has assailed
all the said orders.

12.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents have opposed the writ petition.
It is submitted that claim for mutation
under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act
was made by the petitioner solely on the
basis of registered will dated 19.07.1994. It
is submitted that firstly, neither was the will
proved before the competent authority nor
before the appellate authority and neither
before the revisional authority. It is
submitted that the will had to be proved in
accordance with law as per provisions
contained in Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

13. According to Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, it was necessary for
the petitioner to have produced one
attesting witness in support of the will. In
the present case he had produced one of the
attesting witness, but before the said
witness would be cross examined, the said
proceedings had proceeded ex-parte against
the
petitioner
and
in
the
present
circumstances without cross examination
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the evidence of the said witness could not
have been considered by the competent
authority or by the appellate authority and
also not by the revisional authority and
consequently, the competent authority had
no other alternative except to reject the
application made by the petitioner.

14. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that the finding
of the appellate authority with regard to
correction of will are in accordance with
the provisions contained in the Registration
of Birth and Death Act, 1969. Lastly it has
been submitted that in the present case the
dispute is only with regard mutation of
property of Dharamraji. It is submitted that
proceedings under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act are summary in nature and
consistently this Court has held that in such
matters writ jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be invoked.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has relied upon the judgment
of coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Gauri Dutt Vs. State of U.P. and 8
Others - Writ - C No. 21014 of 2021
(decided on 21.09.2021), wherein this
Court
relying
upon
numerous
other
judgments of this Court has held that
orders for mutation are passed on the
basis of the possession of the parties
and since no substantive rights of the
parties
are
decided
in
mutation
proceedings,
ordinarily
a
writ
petition
is
not
maintainable
in
respect of orders passed in mutation
proceedings
unless
found
to
be
totally
without
jurisdiction
or
contrary to the title already decided
by the compete Court. The parties
are always free to get their rights in
respect
of
the
disputed
land
adjudicated by the competent Court.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in response to the arguments raised by the
respondents has submitted that this Court in
the case of Hadisul Nisha Vs. Additional
Commissioner (Judicial), AIR Online
2021 All 2060 had carved out certain
exception with regard to issue pertaining to
maintainability of the writ petition arising
out of mutation proceedings. He has relied
upon para 19 of the said judgment to
canvass and buttress his submissions, in
case it is demonstrated that mutation has
been directed not on the basis of possession
or simply on the basis of some title deed,
but after entering into a debate of
entitlement
to
succeed
the
property,
touching into the merits of the rival claims,
the writ petition could be entertained.

17. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that his case would fall
within the exceptions provided by the
Court and accordingly the writ petition in
this regard would be maintainable.

18. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

19. Undisputed facts of the present
case are that Dharamraji is related to the
contestants of both sides. She had executed
registered will in favour of petitioner as
well as respondent nos. 9 to 13 on
19.07.1994. It is also alleged that she has
executed another deed on 28.05.1994 in
favour of respondent nos. 4 to 8.
Application for mutation under Section 34
of the Land Revenue Act was preferred by
the
petitioner
before
the
competent
authority.
The
said
application
was
contested by respondent nos. 4 to 8. The
competent authority had rejected the claim
made on behalf of petitioner on the ground
that she has been unable to prove the
registered will inasmuch as she did not
2 All. Smt. Sanwari Devi Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
563
participate in the proceedings which were
held ex-parte and her application was
accordingly rejected.

20. Considering that the proceedings
were held ex-parte against the petitioner, no
finding were to be recorded by the
competent authority in such a situation. The
petitioner had agitated the matter before the
appellate authority who returned finding
with regard to correction made in the date
of death of Dharamraji and the correction
made at the behest of petitioner correcting
the date of death from 30.06.1994 to
30.09.1994, is invalid and illegal inasmuch
as no prior approval of a Magistrate First
Class was taken. He further refused to
interfere with the findings recorded by the
competent authority on the ground that the
petitioner did not participate in the
proceedings before the competent authority
and even the attesting witness could not be
cross examined and consequently the
application for mutation was rejected and
therefore there is no infirmity in the same
and nor any can be pointed out by the
petitioner.

21. The revisional authority also
affirmed the findings of appellate authority
and rejection the revision. The first issue
which deserves to be considered is with
regard to maintainability of the writ
petition, as to whether she has remedy to
approach the competent Court with regard
to her grievance. It is noticed that there are
several decisions of this Court where view
has been taken that mutation proceedings
being summary in nature do not decide a
question of title and the orders passed in
such proceedings do not come into the way
of a person getting his rights adjudicated in
the regular suit and accordingly this Court
has held that writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India would not be
maintainable. For the sake of convenience
few of such judgments are quoted herein
below :-

21(i). A coordinate Bench of this
Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja
and
Ors.
Vs. Addl.
Commissioner
Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors.
2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view
and held as under;

"16. The settled legal position
that entries in revenue records do not
confer any title has been considered and
discussed in a recent judgment of this
Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of
India & Ors.13.

17. In view of the foregoing
discussion, it
may
be
restated
that
ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts
are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction
as they are in summary proceedings, and as
such subject to a regular suit.

18. The mutation proceedings
being of a summary nature drawn on the
basis of possession do not decide any
question of title and the orders passed in
such proceedings do not come in the way of
a person in getting his rights adjudicated in
a regular suit. In view thereof this Court
has consistently held that such petitions are
not to be entertained in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India."

21(ii). In Harish Chandra Vs.
Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212
Division Bench of this Court while dealing
with an issue in regard to the land
acquisition proceedings had the occasion to
discuss the matter relating to revenue
records and held as under;

"37. This Court may also take
into consideration that it is settled law that
the revenue records do not confer title and
even if the entries in the revenue record of
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rights carry value that by itself would not
confer any title upon the person claiming
on the basis of the same.

38. The Supreme Court in Guru
Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3
held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue
records) are not proof of title, and it was
stated as follows:-

"2. ...It is settled law that entries
in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.
They are only statements for revenue
purpose. It is for the parties to establish the
relationship or title to the property unless
there is unequivocal admission..."

21(iii). Apex Court in case of
Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with
the entries of the revenue records relying
upon the earlier judgments of the Apex
Court, held that revenue records are not the
document of title and the same cannot be
basis for declaration of title. Relevant
paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;

"17.
This
Court
in
several
Judgments has held that the revenue
records
does
not
confer
title.
In
Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M.
Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612
held that "it is firmly established that
revenue records are not documents of title,
and the question of interpretation of
document not being a document of title is
not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit
Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4
SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the
entries in jamabandi are not proof of title".
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav
Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this
Court held that "the entries in the revenue
papers, by no stretch of imagination can
form the basis for declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiff."

21(iv). In a recent judgment in
case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar
(D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and
Export
Company
&
Ors.
MANU/SC/0112/2019,
decided
on
31.01.2019, Apex Court held that mutation
of a land in revenue records does not create
or extinguish the title over the land nor it
has any presumptive value on the title.
Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are
extracted here as under;

"8. This Court has consistently
held that mutation of a land in the revenue
records does not create or extinguish the
title over such land nor it has any
presumptive value on the title. It only
enables the person in whose favour
mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue
in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder
Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh &
Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. &
Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma &
Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009)
5 SCC 591).

9.
The
High
Court
while
dismissing the writ petition placed reliance
on the aforementioned law laid down by
this Court and we find no good ground to
differ
with
the
reasoning
and
the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It
is
just
and
proper
calling
for
no
interference."

21(v). In a recent judgment, Apex
Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of
2021 decided on 6th September, 2021 has
held as under :

"6. Right from 1997, the law is
very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v.
Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in
(1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an
occasion to consider the effect of mutation
and it is observed and held that mutation of
property in revenue records neither creates
nor extinguishes title to the property nor
2 All. Smt. Sanwari Devi Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad & Ors.
565
has it any presumptive value on title. Such
entries are relevant only for the purpose of
collecting land revenue. Similar view has
been expressed in the series of decisions
thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v.
Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC
186, it is observed and held by this Court
that an entry in revenue records does not
confer title on a person whose name
appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the
revenue records or jamabandi have only
"fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land
revenue, and no ownership is conferred on
the basis of such entries. It is further
observed that so far as the title of the
property is concerned, it can only be
decided by a competent civil court. Similar
view has been expressed in the cases of
Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12
SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8
SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K,
(2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra,
(2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna
Narasimha,
(2017)
7
SCC
342;
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur
Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC
191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar,
(2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v.
Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.

7. In view of the above settled
proposition of law laid down by this
Court, it cannot be said that the High
Court has committed any error in
setting aside the order passed by the
revenue authorities directing to mutate
the name of the petitioner herein in the
revenue records on the basis of the
alleged will dated 5 20.05.1998 and
relegating the petitioner to approach
the appropriate court to crystalise his
rights on the basis of the alleged will
dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the
High Court."

22. We have also considered another
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha
Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial),
AIR Online 2021 All 2060, where the
Hon'ble Judge of this Court has carved out
certain exceptions for entertaining a writ
petition
arising
out
of
mutation
proceedings. In order to entertain present
writ petition it was to be demonstrated by
the petitioner that mutation has been
directed not on the basis of possession or
simply on the basis of some title deed, but
after entering into a debate of entitlement to
succeed the property, touching into the
merits of the rival claims.

23. Considering the case of the
petitioner
with
regard
to
aforesaid
exceptions carved out by this Court, it is
noticed that the competent authority did not
dwelled into the issue with regard to
validity of the registered will which is
being relied upon by the petitioner. He did
not return a finding that the said will was
fraudulently
made
after
death
of
Dharamraji (testator) nor did he return any
finding with regard to unregistered will, but
had rejected the application merely on the
ground of the fact that the applicant did not
participate in the proceedings and also that
she was not able to prove the registered
will which formed basis of her claim for
mutation. Though, it was open for the
petitioner to submit all the facts and
evidence at the appellate stage but she did
not do so and merely contested the order of
the competent authority on merits. Further
at the appellate stage the attesting witness
were neither produced nor were they cross
examined consequently the material on
which the decision was made by the
appellate authority remained the same
which was before the competent authority
and even before the appellate authority the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
will was not proved and once the basis of
petitioner's claim has not been proved, no
finding could have been returned in favour
of petitioner even at the appellate stage.
Though the proceedings under Section 34
of the Land Revenue Act are summary in
nature, but when a document is denied,
then proper and adequate evidence has to
be adduced to prove the said document.

24. The revisional Court has also
not interfered with both the orders passed
by the authorities below. Accordingly, it
is in the aforesaid facts that this Court is
of the considered view that neither of the
authorities below have entered into the
discussion
with
regard
to
rival
contentions and nor had any discussion
made with regard to validity of the
registered will vis-a-vis unregistered
document. Had a finding been returned
with regard to validity or otherwise of the
registered will, then certainly case could
have been made out for interference by
this Court as per the exception carved out
by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha Vs.
Additional Commissioner (supra).

25.

It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, this Court finds itself
bound by the consistent view taken by
this Court in the case of Guridutt Vs.
State of U.P. and 8 Others - Writ - C
No.
21014
of
2021
(decided
on
21.09.2021), where this Court has held
that in such matters it is open for the
petitioner to take his/her claim before the
regular Courts.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances
this Court is not inclined to entertain
present writ petition or interfere with the
orders impugned herein. Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above, present writ
petition is dismissed.

27. However, the petitioner would
be at liberty to demonstrate her case
before the appropriate Court, if so
advised.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 566
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1004261 of 2011

Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
J.P. Narayan Vajpayee, Chhatrapal Rawat,
Dilip
Kumar
Pandey,
Praveen
Kumar
Sharma, Umesh Chanra Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Arms
Act,
1959-Section
17(3)(b)-the petitioner challenges the
cancellation
of
a
firearm
license-the
District Magistrate cancelled the firearm
license citing misuse of license in criminal
activities, particulary in case crime no.
287 of 2007, where he allegedly fired at
public officials during a demolition drivethe decision was upheld by the appellate
authority-The court held that an acquittal
based on insufficient evidence or benefit
of
doubt
does
not
invalidate
the
administrative decision to revoke the
license-the decisions made after following
the prescribed legal procedure are valid,
even if subsequent acquittals occur in
related criminal cases-The petition was
dismissed, affirming the cancellation's