# Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors v. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-03
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 3837 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-singh-ors-v-addl-commissioner-admn-ayodhya-division-ayodhya-ors-52057
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law -order passed by the revisional
court under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006-under challengepreliminary objection raised-alternative
remedy to file a suit under Section 144 of
the
Code-consolidation
proceedings-
name of respondent no. 4 recorded-his
mother
predeceased
her
maternal
grandmother-mutation proceedings under
Section 34 of the Code allowed in favour
of petitioner-appeal filed by respondentsU-turn by respondent no. 4-his mother
expired after the demise of his maternal
grandmother- appeal dismissed-revision
against
it
allowed-
respondent
had
claimed inheritance under Section 171 (2)
(h) of the Act,1950-objection of forged
death certificate not duly appreciated by
the revisional court-nor did the finding
returned by the appellate court has been
challenged
in
revision-
petition
maintainable as per the exceptions carved
out in Hadisul Nisha judgement-admission
is the best piece of evidence-impugned
order quashed- petition allowed. (Paras
31 to 35)

HELD:
The observation/ finding of the revisional Court
that it might have been mistake of the counsel
has no substance but it is only conjectural. The
revisional court has erred, in case the original
which are said by the revisional Court to be
before it and when the same was objected by
the petitioners who were respondents there and
moved an application for summoning the
original record and the Officer who had issued
the
same
and
particularly
under
the
circumstances that since the year 2013, the
respondent no. 4 filed affidavits before different
authorities and the courts including before the
High Court had never ever been placed the copy
of the death certificate and made averment on
oath that her mother predeceased her mother
and the detailed finding in the appellate order
treating that the photocopy of the death
certificate is not an admissible piece of evidence
then it is incumbent upon the revisional court
before deciding the case in favour of respondent
no. 4 must require the document to be proved
by the party relying upon it. (Para 31)

The writ petition is maintainable as per condition
no. (v) of the judgment in the case of Hadisul
Nisha (supra). (Para 33)

The admission of respondent no. 4 not once but
more than once before different authorities
including before this Court in the writ petition
filed by the respondent no. 4 that his mother
predeceased
her
mother
i.e.
maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4 and that his
case falls under category of (h) of Section 171
(2) of the Act, 1950 and it is best piece of
evidence in the light of Section 31 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, though it is not a conclusive
proof but they may operate as estoppel. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary [2005(5) SCC
63] has held that admission is the best piece of
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2229
evidence against the persons making admission
by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram
Gopal [AIR 1979 SC 861] in the backdrop of
Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 35)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 40,207. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

2228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.122651/2022; State vs. Petr Novotny
and Ors, arising out of Case Crime
No.492/2020, pending before the learned
Special
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
(Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 406,
420, 506, 120-B and 436 I.P.C. are hereby
quashed so far as it relates to the instant
applicant.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2228
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ - C No. 3837 of 2024

Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya
Division, Ayodhya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ravi Shanker Tewari, Sheo Pal Singh,
Vishwakant Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Brijesh Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh

Civil Law -order passed by the revisional
court under Section 210 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006-under challengepreliminary objection raised-alternative
remedy to file a suit under Section 144 of
the
Code-consolidation
proceedings-
name of respondent no. 4 recorded-his
mother
predeceased
her
maternal
grandmother-mutation proceedings under
Section 34 of the Code allowed in favour
of petitioner-appeal filed by respondentsU-turn by respondent no. 4-his mother
expired after the demise of his maternal
grandmother- appeal dismissed-revision
against
it
allowed-
respondent
had
claimed inheritance under Section 171 (2)
(h) of the Act,1950-objection of forged
death certificate not duly appreciated by
the revisional court-nor did the finding
returned by the appellate court has been
challenged
in
revision-
petition
maintainable as per the exceptions carved
out in Hadisul Nisha judgement-admission
is the best piece of evidence-impugned
order quashed- petition allowed. (Paras
31 to 35)

HELD:
The observation/ finding of the revisional Court
that it might have been mistake of the counsel
has no substance but it is only conjectural. The
revisional court has erred, in case the original
which are said by the revisional Court to be
before it and when the same was objected by
the petitioners who were respondents there and
moved an application for summoning the
original record and the Officer who had issued
the
same
and
particularly
under
the
circumstances that since the year 2013, the
respondent no. 4 filed affidavits before different
authorities and the courts including before the
High Court had never ever been placed the copy
of the death certificate and made averment on
oath that her mother predeceased her mother
and the detailed finding in the appellate order
treating that the photocopy of the death
certificate is not an admissible piece of evidence
then it is incumbent upon the revisional court
before deciding the case in favour of respondent
no. 4 must require the document to be proved
by the party relying upon it. (Para 31)

The writ petition is maintainable as per condition
no. (v) of the judgment in the case of Hadisul
Nisha (supra). (Para 33)

The admission of respondent no. 4 not once but
more than once before different authorities
including before this Court in the writ petition
filed by the respondent no. 4 that his mother
predeceased
her
mother
i.e.
maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4 and that his
case falls under category of (h) of Section 171
(2) of the Act, 1950 and it is best piece of
evidence in the light of Section 31 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, though it is not a conclusive
proof but they may operate as estoppel. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudhary [2005(5) SCC
63] has held that admission is the best piece of
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2229
evidence against the persons making admission
by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das vs. Ram
Gopal [AIR 1979 SC 861] in the backdrop of
Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 35)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hadisul Nisha Vs Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Faizabad [(2021) 6 ADJ 176]

2. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue & ors. [(2022)
4 ADJ 578]

3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & anr. Vs Samir Chandra Chaudhary
[2005(5) SCC 63]

4. Poonam Vs St. of U.P.: (2016) 2 SCC 779

5. Avadh Kishore Das Vs Ram Gopal [AIR 1979
SC 861]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Short counter affidavit has been
filed by learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel and Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the private respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that he does not want to file any
rejoinder affidavit to the short counter affidavit
filed by counsel for the respondent no. 4.

4. With the consent of the parties
the matter is being finally decided at this
stage itself.

5. The present writ petition has
been preferred for quashing of the
impugned revisional order/judgment dated
09.04.2024 passed by respondent no.
1/Additional
Commissioner
(Admn),
Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in revision no.
341/2024
(computerized
no.
C202404000000341 titled as Parikshit
Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and Ors.,
under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

6. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned
Standing Counsel and Sri Brijesh Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 have raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the present
writ petition as the petitioners have an
alternative remedy to file a suit under
Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Code,
2006).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the writ petition is
maintainable before this Court and the
alternative remedy to file a suit under
Section 144 of the Code, 2006 is not
attracted in the case of the petitioners as per
exceptions (iv) & (v) carved out by this
Court in the case of Hadisul Nisha v.
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Faizabad [(2021) 6 ADJ 176] which has
been followed in the case of Kalawati v.
Board of Revenue & ors. [(2022) 4 ADJ
578].

8. It is further submitted that late Raj
Bahadur Singh was the original tenure
holder of the agricultural land in villages
Raipatti and Gehnaar in Tehsil- Milkipur,
District Faizabad/Ayodhya. The pedigree
which the petitioners are relying is
admitted to the respondent no. 4 also. For
convenience, the pedigree is given
below:-
2230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. It is further submitted that as per the
pedigree mentioned above, the petitioner
nos. 1 and 2 are great Grandsons of late Raj
Bahadur Singh being the son of Jagdamba,
who was son of Ram Murti Singh and Ram
Murti Singh was the second son of Raj
Bahadur Singh whereas the petitioner no. 3
is the grand daughter-in-law of late Raj
Bahadur Singh i.e. w/o late Jagdamba
Singh, grandson of Late Raj Bahadur
Singh. The respondent no. 4 was the
maternal great grandson of Late Raj
Bahadur Singh i.e. Son of Mayawati and
Mayawati was daughter of Bhagwanta,
who was wife of Shiv Murti Singh, who
was eldest son of late Raj Bahadur Singh.

10. It is further submitted that after the
village had come under consolidation, on
the application of respondent no. 4, the land
was
entered
in
his
name
by
the
Consolidation Committee under Section
6A of the Act, 1953 on 10.04.2013 passed
by Chakbandi Karta, which was challenged
by the petitioners by filing revision before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation in
which, an interim order dated 19.06.2013
was passed which was challenged by the
respondent no. 4 by filing Writ Petition No.
795 of 2013 (Consolidation). The said writ
petition was disposed of with a direction to
decide the revision expeditiously. The
respondent no. 4 filed an objection on
02.09.2013 and stating that his mother
predeceased his grandmother i.e. maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4. During
the
pendency,
the
petitioners
had
approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition No. 795 of 2013 and this Court by
its judgment and order dated 18.05.2016
disposed of the writ petition with liberty to
the petitioners to file their objections under
Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953.

11. It is further submitted that
before the petitioners could have filed their
objections, the notification under Section 6
was
published
de-notifying
the
consolidation proceedings. After the denotification under Section 6, the petitioners
had moved an application for mutation
under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 which was allowed in their
favour by order dated 28.09.2020. Against
which the appeal was preferred by the
respondents and for the first time, in the
said appeal, a U-turn was taken by the
respondent no. 4 and took the stand that his
mother expired after the demise of her
mother i.e. maternal grandmother of
respondent no. 4 and in support of his
submission, the respondent no. 4 filed a
photocopy of the death certificate for the
first time in the year 2021. The appeal was
dismissed by the judgment and order dated
09.01.2024 with a finding that the
photocopy of the death certificate cannot
be accepted as admissible piece of
evidence.
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2231

12. It is further submitted that against
the appellate order, the respondent no. 4
had preferred a revision which was allowed
in favour of the respondent no. 4 by the
impugned judgment and order dated
09.04.2024 against which the present writ
petition has been preferred.

13. It is further submitted that the
revisional court was adamant to pass an
order in favour of respondent no. 4 and this
fact could be seen from the objections filed
by the petitioners before the revisional
court mentioning all these facts as it has
been pleaded in the present writ petition
along with documents but none of the
documents or the submission of the
petitioners
were
considered
by
the
revisional court.

14. It is further submitted that the
petitioners had also moved an application
for summoning of original death certificate
and the parivar register which could prove
the case but no orders were passed even on
the said application.

15. It is further submitted that when
the revisional authority was not hearing the
petitioners, the petitioners had moved an
application for transfer of the case on
05.04.2024 and the moment the application
was filed, within four days the impugned
order has been passed by the revisional
court.

16. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 has
submitted that the petitioners had filed a
mutation application with an inordinate delay
and that too, without making or arraying the
respondent no. 4 as an opposite party.

17. It is further submitted that the birth
and death certificate issued under Section 8
of the Registration of Births and Deaths
Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the
Act, 1969) and the documents issued under
Section 8 of the Act, 1969 would be in
existence untill and unless the same is
cancelled under Section 15 of the Act,
1969, whereas the petitioners had not filed
any application for cancellation of the said
death certificate.

18. It is further submitted that the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner which he has pressed hard that he
had moved an application for summoning
the parivar register and the death certificate
and the same was never decided is also an
incorrect submission for the reason that in
para 16 of the revisional order, it has been
mentioned that the death certificate and
parivar register in original were in the court
and it was seen and on that the petitioners
who were respondents there had not raised
any strong objection. Para 16 of the
revisional order is quoted hereinbelow:-

"16. र्रयरवती की र्ृत्यु कर प्रर्रण पत् और पररवरर
रदजस्टर र्ूि रूप से इस न्यरयरिय र्ें उपिब्ि कररये गये है। इस पर
दवपक्षी कोई ठोस आपदत्त प्रस्तुत नहीं कर सकते ।"

19. It is further submitted that the
finding regarding that the mother of the
respondent no. 4 predeceased his mother
was due to the fault of the counsels and the
same has been followed in the subsequent
proceedings but at the appellate stage it was
rectified by the respondent no. 4 by filing
the photo copy of the death certificate.

20. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioners has submitted that though
the original death certificate was filed by
respondent No.4 but the petitioners had
raised the objection even the original
documents are forged and fabricated and
when the same was not considered then an
2232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application was moved on 27.03.2024 for
summoning the original record and the
officer who had issued the said certificate
but the revisional court has not paid any
heed to the same and had not passed any
order on the application of the petitioners
and without proving the death certificate,
the same was taken into consideration by
the revisional Court.

21. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and going through the record of
the case, the position which emerges out in
the present case is that the agricultural land
belonged to Late Raj Bahadur Singh. The
petitioners belong to the family of Late Raj
Bahadur Singh being great grandfather of
the petitioners and respondent No.4 is the
maternal great grandson of Late Raj
Bahadur Singh. The agricultural land was
entered in the name of late Raj Bahadur
Singh in two villages namely Raipatti and
Gahnaar,
Tehsil
Milkipur
District
Ayodhya. Dispute involved in the present
writ petition is with regard to the
agricultural
land
situated
at
Village
Raipatti. The petitioners got their names
mutated
on
the
basis
of
succession/inheritance which was objected
by the respondent No.4 by raising his claim
at three stages with an admission on
affidavit that her mother predeceased her
mother i.e. maternal grandmother of the
respondent no. 4 and he falls under
category 171 (2) (h) of the Act, 1950
whereas, petitioners fall under category (e)
of Section 171(2) of the Act, 1950. For
convenience, the Section 171 of the Act,
1950 is quoted hereinbelow:-

171. General order of succession.
- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section
169, when a bhumidhar or asami, being a
male dies, his interest in his holding shall
devolve upon his heirs being the relatives
specified in sub-section (2) in accordance
with the following principles, namely :-

(i) the heirs specified in any one
clause of sub-section (2) shall take
simultaneously in equal shares;

(ii) the "heirs specified in any
preceding clause of sub-section (2) shall
take to the exclusion of all heirs specified in
succeeding clauses, that is to say, those in
clause (a) shall be preferred to those in
clause (b), those in clause (b) shall be
preferred to those in clause (c), and so on,
in succession;

(iii) if there are more widows
than one, of the bhumidhar or asami, or of
any predeceased male lineal descendant,
who would have been an heir, if alive, all
such widows together shall take one share.

(iv) the widow or widowed
mother or the father's widowed mother or
the widow of any predeceased male lineal
descendant who would have been an heir, if
alive, shall inherit only if she has not
remarried.]

[(2) the following relatives of the
male bhumidhar or asami are heirs
subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),
namely :-

(a) [widow, unmarried daughter]
and the male lineal descendant per stirps:

Provided that the widow and the
son of a predeceased son how low-so-ever
per stirps shall inherit the share which
would have devolved upon the predeceased
son had he been alive;

(b) mother and father;

(c) [*];

(d) married daughter;

(e) brother and unmarried sister
being respectively the son and the
daughter of the same father as the
deceased; and son of a predeceased
brother, the predeceased brother having
been the son of the same father as the
deceased;
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2233

(f) son's daughter;

(g) father's mother and father's
father;

(h) daughter's son;

(i) married sister;

(j) half sister, being the daughter
of the same father as the deceased;

(k) sister's son;

(l) half sister's son, the sister
having been the daughter of the same father
as the deceased;

(m) brother's son's son;

(n) mother's mother's son;

(o) father's father's son's son.]

22. Firstly, the said admission was
made by the respondent no. 4 in para no. 13
of the objections dated 02.09.2013,which is
quoted hereinbelow:-

" Para 13- that the recorded
tenant Smt. Bhagwanta had no any
male issue except a daughter named
Smt. Mayawati who was died during
the life time of his mother and as a real
son of Smt. Mayawati or as a son of
daughter
of
the
deceased
Smt.
Bhagwanta opposite party no. 2 named
Parikshit Kumar son of Raghaw Bihari
Singh is the only legal heir of the
deceased."

23. The second time in his objection
dated 08.01.2014 with regard to the
agricultural land situated at Gahnaar , para
nos. 4 to 6 of the said document filed
alongwith the supplementary affidavit are
quoted hereinbelow:-

"िररर-4 यह दक शपथी परीदक्षत कुर्रर की नरनी
िगवन्तर के जीवनकरि र्ें ही र्रतर र्रयर की र्ृत्यु हो चुकी थी
दजससे प्ररथी नरनी के सरथ रहकर उनकी सेवर परवररश करतर थर

िररर-5 यह दक शपथी परीदक्षत कुर्रर की र्रतर र्रयर
की र्ृत्यु नरनी िगवन्तर से पूवम हो जरने के कररण प०क०11 र्े
दवद्वरन ररजस्व दनरीक्षक ने िगवन्तर की र्ृत्यु के बरि
उत्तररदिकरर/वररसत कर दनिरमरण कर िगवन्तर की आररजी को
शपथी परीदक्षत कुर्रर के नरर् िरदखि खरररज कर दियर जो
दनयर्रनुसरर दवदि सांगत है।

िररर-6 यह दक शपथी परीदक्षत कुर्रर कर नरर्
िगवन्तर र्ृतक के स्थरन पर प०क० 11 पर िजम दकयर जरनर उ०प्र०
जर्ी० दवनरस और िूदर् व्यवस्थर अदिदनय1950 की िररर 171
ज के उपबन्िो के अन्तगमत न्यरयसांगत है।"

24. In which, it has also admitted that
the respondent no. 4 falls under category
(h) of Section 171 (2) of the Act, 1950. In
Hindi language, it has been mentioned as (ज
) in the affidavit.

25. Again, third time the respondent
no. 4 before this Court at the time of filing
of the Writ Petition No. 795 of 2013
(Consolidation) has averred in para no. 5 of
the writ petition. The relevant para no. 5 is
quoted hereinbelow:-

" That unfortunately the mother
of the petitioner Smt. Mayawati died in the
life time of his mother Smt. Bhagwanta and
thus after the death of Smt. Bhagwanta the
maternal grand mother of the petitioner,
the name of petitioner was mutated in the
Shattwarshik Khatauni of Fasli year 1407
to 1412 by the consolidation officer by
exercising the power vested under Section
6-A of the C.H. Act on dated 14.04.2013.
The copy of Sharwarshik Khatauni of the
land in question is being filed as annnexue
no. 2 to with writ petition. "

26. The respondent no. 4 filed an
appeal against the mutation order dated
28.09.2020 passed in favour of the
petitioner
and
changed
the
stand
completely and took u-turn from his earlier
admissions made on oath before the Court
below even before this Court by stating that
her
grand
mother
Bhagwanta
had
2234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
predeceased her daughter i.e. mother of
respondent no. 4. The appeal was dismissed
by
the
judgment
and
order
dated
09.01.2024, where only the photocopy of
the death certificate was produced and a
detailed finding was given by the appellate
authority. The relevant extract of the same
is quoted hereinbelow:-

"17 -पत्रविी पर प्रस्तुत सरक्ष्यों से यह िी स्पि
हुआ दक प्रश्नगत िूदर्िर के र्ृत्यु प्रर्रण पत् की र्रत् छरयरप्रदत यर
जो सत्यरदपत िी नही है, ऐफेडेदबट से सर्रदथमत नहीं है, अपीिरथी
द्वररर प्रस्तुत की गयी है, दजसे दवद्वरन अदिवक्तर उत्तरिरतर पक्ष द्वररर
जरि सरजी युक्त कररर दियर है, बतरयर दक प्रस्तुत प्रश्नगत र्ृत्यु प्रर्रण
पत् की छरयरप्रदत दजसर्ें श्रीर्ती र्रयरवती दसांह की र्ृत्यु दिनरांक
07.02.2006 दिखी हैं तथर रदजस्रेशन कर दिनरांक
22.02.2006 तथर जररी होने कर दिनराँक िी 22.02.2006
िशरमयर गयर है, वह फजी है, जो येन-केन जररी कररयर गयर है, इसकी
प्रर्रदणत प्रदत न्यरयरिय र्ें प्रस्तुत नहीं की गयी है, वस्तुतः सूचनर
र्ृत्यु के र्ूि अदििेख से दिये जरने कर प्ररदविरन है, िेदकन उक्त
र्ूि अदििेख को अपीिरथी द्वररर न्यरयरिय के सर्क्ष प्रस्तुत नही
दकयर गयर, अपीिरथी द्वररर पररवरर रदजस्रर की नकि दिनरांक
27.12.2021 प्रस्तुत की गयी है, अपीिरथी ने र्ृत्यु प्रर्रण पत्
दनगर्मन दिनरांक 22.02.2006 प्रस्तुत दकयर है अतः उक्त सूचनर
के दिनरांक के करगजरत दजनके आिरर पर यह प्रर्रण पत् प्रस्तुत
करनर अपेदक्षत थर, तरदक यह दसद्ध हो परतर की श्रीर्ती र्रयरवती
दक र्ृत्यु श्रीर्ती िगवन्तर दसांह के जीवनकरि र्ें हई थी अन्यथर की
दस्थदत र्ें दवद्वरन अदिवक्तर उत्तरिरतर के तकम अदत त्यरपक है दक
श्रीर्ती र्रयरवती दसांह की र्ृत्यु दिनरांक फजी तरीके से कूट रचनर कर
बरि की दतदथ की िरशरमयी जर रही है।"

27. Against the appellate order, the
respondent no. 4 had preferred a revision
and on being asked from the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 whether
the finding given by the appellate Court
regarding death certificate as mentioned
above was challenged in the revision or not,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in
his reply has submitted that it was
challenged by taking a specific ground and
the pleadings and in support of his
submissions he has drawn attention of this
Court to para nos. 5, 7, 13, 14 and 23 of the
revision, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

"Para-4:

Because the learned Tehsildar
has acted with substantial illegality in
allowing the mutation application moved
by the opposite party Vijay kumar & others
cryptically, even without hearing to me
applicant / revisionist by way of violating
his right of natural justice and thereafter,
appeal moved by the applicant / revisionist
has been dismissed by the learned Dy.
Collector (J.) Milkipur, Ayodhya relied on
the false & inadmissible facts aaduced by
the opposite party regarding death of
revisionist's mother late Smt. Mayawati
with the sole object for providing undue &
influential advantages to the opposite party
no.1 to 3. Hence, both the orders impugned
are liable to be set aside.

Para-5:

Because applicant / revisionist
had adduced evidences regarding death of
his mother as well as recorded tenure
holder of the land in question and
accordingly, real daughter of the recorded
tenure holder Smt. Mayawati Singh
proceed to death on 07.02.2006 after the
death of her mother Smt. Bhagwanta dated
29.11.2005 but this fact has been fully
overlooked by the learned Courts below in
passing the orders impugned as such liable
to be set aside.

 Para-7:
 Because whole approach of the
learned Courts below in deciding the case
was arbitrarily & cursorily, overlooking
the entire material evidence on record
adduced by the applicant / revisionist and
orders impugned have been passed upon
surmise grounds, keeping illegal grounds
regarding death of real daughter of late
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2235
Bhagwanta while there was no objection
from the side of the opposite party before
the
Consolidation
Court
claiming
outrightly their rights on the basis of
alleged legal heirship.

Para-13:

That subsequently, against the
order aforesaid dated 15.04.2023 passed
by the learned Consolidator, there was filed
a revision u/s-48 (1) of UPCH Act which
was decided by the revisional Court on
17.12.2016 by way of confirming the order
aforesaid
passed
by
the
leamed
Consolidator.

Para-14:

That
the
opposite
parties
concerned are habitual litigants and
accordingly, they approached before the
Hon'ble High Court by way of preferring a
Writ Petition No.10519/2017 under Article
226 of Cons. of India which disposed off..
by the Hon'ble High Court on 12.05.2017
by way of dismissing the writ petition. The
operative portion of the order of Hon'ble

High Court is being reproduced as
below: "By means of order dated 17.12.2016,
opposite party no.1 has dismissed the
revision on the ground that if the petitioners
have any grievance in the matter in question,
he may agitate the same under Section 9 of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. So, I
do find any good ground or reason to
interfere in the matter because parties will get
ample opportunity by way of oral &
documentary evidence before Consolidation
Officer, so at this stage no legal injury has
been caused to the petitioner by means of
order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the
opposite party no. 1.

For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed."

Para-23:

1. That in the interest of justice, it
is necessary to allow the revision and the
order impugned dated 19.01.2024 passed
by the learned Dy. Collector (J.) Milkipur,
Ayodhya as well as order of learned
Tehsildar Milkipur dated 28.09.2020 to be
set aside and appreciating the order of
Consolidation Court as well as Hon'ble
High Court, it would be just & expedient to
be passed an appropriate order in favour of
the applicant / revisionist by way of
recording the land property in question in
favour of the applicant / revisionist as legal
heir of the recorded tenure holder late Smt.
Bhagwanta w/o Shiv Murat Singh as well as
her real daughter late Smt. Mayawati w/o
Raghav Bihari Singh. Otherwise. the
applicant
/
revisionist
will
put
to
irreparable loss which may not be
compensated by any other means.

It is, therefore, prayed that the
order & judgment may kindly be passed in
the following manners:

(i) The revision moved by the
applicant / revisionist, may kindly be
allowed.

(ii) The order & judgment in
question under revision dated 19.01.2024
passed by the learned Dy. Collector (J.)
Milkipur. Ayodhya as well as order of
learned
Tehsildar
Milkipur
dated
28.09.2020 please be set aside. And

(iii) Appreciating the order of
Consolidation Court as well as Hon'ble
High Court be pleased to be passed an
appropriate order in favour of the
applicant / revisionist for recording the
land property in question in favour of the
applicant / revisionist as legal heir of the
recorded
tenure
holder
late
Smt.
Bhagwanta w/o Shiv Murat Singh as well as
her real daughter late Smt. Mayawati w/o
Raghav Bihari Singh. Or
2236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) Any other relief / relives
which this Hon'ble deems fit, just & proper
be pleased to be passed an. appropriate
order in favor of the applicant / revisionist
in the interest of justice."

28. From the perusal of the
aforequoted paragraphs relied by the
learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, it
is clear that he has failed to indicate that the
findings given by the appellate Court with
regard to the death certificate was
challenged before the revisional court.

29. The petitioners had filed
objections in the revision taking all these
pleas including the forged death certificate
adduced by the respondent no. 4 and about
the
earlier
proceedings
where
the
respondent no. 4 had admitted that the
mother of the respondent no. 4 predeceased
her mother i.e. the maternal grand mother
of the respondent no. 4 but the revisional
Court was not ready to hear any of the
objections.
Under
these
compelling
circumstances,
the
petitioners
had
approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition No. C No. 2230 of 2004 (Vijay
Kumar Singh and 2 others Vs. Additional
Commissioner (Administration) and others.
The said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court by its judgment and order dated
11.03.2024 with an expectation from the
revisional Court that it will consider the
objection of the petitioners. The relevant
extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances and also noticing that the
issue is still alive before the revisional
court and even though the petitioner has
filed his objections, yet the same is yet to be
considered on merits. Accordingly, at this
stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere
leaving it open for the petitioners to press
their objections before the revisional court
and since the matter is already listed on
15.3.2024, it is expected that the revisional
court shall hear the parties on the aforesaid
issue on 15.3.2024 and pass necessary
orders and in case if the same is not
possible, then within next two weeks."

30. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners finds force, so an
application was moved on 27.03.2024 for
summoning the original record of the
alleged original copies which are said by
the revisional Court to be before it and also
to summon the officer who had issued the
said certificate but no orders were passed
on the said application. Thereafter, the
petitioners had no other option except to
move an application for transfer of the case
by moving an application on 05.04.2024
and within four days of moving the
application, the impugned judgment has
been given by the revisional court. The
revisional court in complete derogation to
the orders passed by this Court dated
11.03.2024 has decided the revision. The
case/objections of the petitioners have not
been discussed and decided the revision in
favour of the respondent no. 4 and erred in
giving the following findings:-

(i) Firstly, that the court below
had failed to appreciate the death certificate
produced by the respondent no. 4 without
appreciating that original copy of death
certificate was never adduced by the
respondent no. 4 before the Court below. It
is for the first time as per para no. 16 of
impugned revisional order, as mentioned in
preceding para, there is a reference of
original death certificate. It is also revealed
from the record that the revision was filed
on 03.02.2024 by the respondent no. 2. The
objections were filed by the petitioners,
who were respondents in the revision in the
5 All. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Ayodhya Division,
 Ayodhya & Ors.
2237
month of February, 2024 itself and after
more than one and a half months from the
date of filing of the revision by the
respondent no. 2 and after filing of the
objections by the petitioners, an application
was filed by the respondent no. 2 on
27.03.2024 bringing on record certain
documents including death certificate of
Late Mayawati i.e. the mother of the
respondent no. 2 dated 22.02.2006 in which
the date of death has been shown as
07.02.2006 but no death certificate of late
Bhagwanta was filed by the respondent no.
2 and without filing the same, it could not
be determined that who predeceased whom.

(ii) Secondly, as far as the finding
that when the Will was in favour of the
father of the petitioner was executed by
Late Bhagwanta why he had not claimed
the agricultural land on the basis of the
same is concerned, it is not at all relevant
for the purposes of determining the claim of
respondent no. 4. The petitioners did not
claim their right on the basis of the Will
executed by Late Bhagwanta in favour of
Jagdamba Singh, the father of the
petitioners. They have raised their claim on
the basis of inheritance/succession.

(iii)
And
thirdly,
if
some
typographical mistake is committed by the
counsel by cutting and pasting the paras in
the earlier affidavits, the revisionist could
not be said to be a party to the same as the
earlier admission of the respondent no. 4
could not be said to be an admission by the
respondent no. 4 as it is the fault of the
lawyer or typing mistake, who had drafted
the documents by cut and paste even that
finding is not tenable, for the reasons the
documents as relied above and mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs, affidavits were
not only in one language, they were in
different language somewhere it was in
English and somewhere it was in Hindi and
even somewhere the contents are additional
or changed. The said finding is also not
tenable as in the application/affidavit, in
para nos. 4 & 5 as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph, it is admitted by the
respondent
no.
4
that
his
mother
predeceased her mother i.e. the maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4 could not
be said that it is on the fault of the Lawyer
or typing mistake when the same is read
with para 6 where the respondent no. 4
himself admitted that he falls under the
category 171 (2)(h) of the Act, 1950.

31. The observation/ finding of the
revisional Court that it might have been
mistake of the counsel has no substance but
it is only conjectural. The revisional court
has erred, in case the original which are said
by the revisional Court to be before it and
when the same was objected by the
petitioners who were respondents there and
moved an application for summoning the
original record and the Officer who had
issued the same and particularly under the
circumstances that since the year 2013, the
respondent no. 4 filed affidavits before
different
authorities
and
the
courts
including before the High Court had never
ever been placed the copy of the death
certificate and made averment on oath that
her mother predeceased her mother and the
detailed finding in the appellate order
treating that the photocopy of the death
certificate is not an admissible piece of
evidence then it is incumbent upon the
revisional court before deciding the case in
favour of respondent no. 4 must require the
document to be proved by the party relying
upon it.

32. The case of the petitioners falls
under the exception no. (iv) & (v) of the
judgment in the case of Hadisul Nisha
(supra). The relevant extract is quoted
hereinbelow:-
2238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The Courts in the aforecited
decisions have laid down a few parameters
for entertaining writs arising out of
mutation proceedings. The exceptions that
have been carved out being very few, for
example:

(i) If the order is without
jurisdiction;

(ii) If the rights and title of the
parties have already been decided by the
competent Court, and that has been varied
by the mutation Courts;

(iii) If the 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;

(iv) If rights have been created
which are against statutory provisions of
any Statute, and the entry itself confers a
title on the petitioner by virtue of the
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act;

(v) Where the orders impugned
in the writ petition have been passed on
the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of
facts, or by fabricating the documents by
anyone of the litigants.
 (vi) Where the Courts have not
considered the matter on merits for
example the Courts have passed orders on
restoration applications etc (Vijay Shankar
v.
Additional
Commissioner,
MANU/UP/0255/2015 : 2015 (3) ADJ 186
(LB)"

33.

The
writ
petition
is
maintainable as per condition no. (v) of the
judgment in the case of Hadisul Nisha
(supra).

34. The submission of counsel for
respondent no. 4 that petitioners had
claimed their rights after an inordinate
delay could also not be material for the
adjudication in the present case but the said
submission
is
not
tenable
in
the
circumstances of the present case as the
petitioners prior to moving an application
of mutation in the year 2019 had
continuously fighting for their rights since
the year 2012/13 when the consolidation
proceedings had started and the name of
respondent no. 4 was entered by the
Consolidation Committee under Section 6
of the Act, 1953.

35. The admission of respondent no. 4
not once but more than once before
different authorities including before this
Court in the writ petition filed by the
respondent
no.
4
that
his
mother
predeceased her mother i.e. maternal
grandmother of respondent no. 4 and that
his case falls under category of (h) of
Section 171 (2) of the Act, 1950 and it is
best piece of evidence in the light of Section
31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
though it is not a conclusive proof but they
may operate as estoppel. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Anr. vs. Samir Chandra
Chaudhary [2005(5) SCC 63] has held
that admission is the best piece of evidence
against the persons making admission by
following
the
judgment
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Avadh
Kishore Das vs. Ram Gopal [AIR 1979
SC 861] in the backdrop of Section 31 of
the Indian Evidence Act.

36. In view of the facts, circumstances
and the discussion made hereinabove, the
present writ petition is allowed.

37. The revisional order dated
09.04.2024 passed by respondent no.
1/Additional Commissioner (Admn),
5 All. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs. District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
2239
Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in revision no.
341/2024
(computerized
no.
C202404000000341 is hereby quashed and
the case is remanded to the Revisional
Court to consider the matter afresh in the
light of the observations made in the
judgment.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 1000528 of 2010

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Sultanpur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Lucknow & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shraddha
Agarwal,
Anshuman
Singh,
Radhika Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Amita Srivastava, Anil Srivastava,
Ashwani Kumar Singh, Asit K. Chaturvedi,
Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Manik Sinha, Pratul
Kr. Srivastava, Pratyush Chaube

Civil Law - execution of arbitration awardorder substituting petitioner in place of
original
judgement
debtor-under
challenge-petitioner was not a party to
the arbitration proceedings-impleading
application decided by treating it to be an
application for substitution-application
filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPCOrder XXI of CPC- self-contained code for
execution proceedings-no provision that
empowers the court to order impleadment
of
any
new
party
in
execution
proceedings-
substitution
proceedings
under Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC-not of
any avail-transfer made long after passing
of the arbitration award-on application for
attachment of properties of judgement
debtor filed under Order XXI CPC-no bar in
property being sold by Debt Recovery
Tribunal-petitioner
is
an
auction
purchaser-not
liable
to
satisfy
the
arbitration award passed against the
judgement
debtor-it
can
neither
be
impleaded nor be substituted in execution
proceedings-
impugned
order
unsustainable in law- petition allowed.
(Paras 21, 25, 26 & 27)

HELD:
The application for impleadment filed by the
opposite party no.2 did not make a mention of
the provision under which it was filed. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the application had been filed
under the provisions contained in under Order I
Rule 10 (2) of the CPC. Order 1 of the CPC deals
with "Parties to Suits". The application for
impleadment was filed in execution proceedings
and not in a suit. The execution proceedings
have also not been filed for execution of any
decree passed in a suit, rather it was for
execution
of
an
arbitration
award.
The
procedure
governing
the
executions
proceedings is contained in Order XXI of CPC
which in itself is a self-contained code. There is
no provision in Order XXI of the CPC which
empowers the court to order impleadment of
any new party in execution proceedings, which
party was not there in the arbitration
proceedings in which the arbitration award was
passed. (Para 21)

The provision for substitution of parties in the
proceedings of suit are contained in Order XXII
C.P.C. Rule 10 whereof provides for substitution
of the transferee in case of assignment, creation
or devolution of any interest during pendency of
the suit but in the present case, the transfer was
not made during pendency of the arbitration
proceedings and it was made long after passing
of the arbitration award. (Para 25)

The opposite party no.