HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026 Rishikesh Patel And Another …..Petitioners(s) Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 8 Others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Chandra Prakash Singh, Shad Khan, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar, C.S.C., Dharm Vir Jaiswal, Harsh Vikram Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 9 and Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent nos. 2 & 9, dated 12.04.2025 and 16.03.2025 respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. 3. The facts of the case, as borne out from the writ petition are, that the land in dispute was the holding of Babuni S/o Ram Lagan, who had three daughters, the respondent nos. 3 to 5. After marrying the three daughters, late Babuni lived alongwith his brother Chhote Lal and his sons, the petitioners and respondent nos. 6 to 8. Babuni during his lifetime executed a registered gift deed, dated 20.06.2014, transferring his 1/3 share in Plot No. 137, area 1.153 hectare, situated in Village 2 WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026 Churaha, Maupakad, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj, in favour of the petitioners and respondent nos. 6 to 8. During lifetime of late Babunidas the name of petitioners alongwith respondent nos. 6 to 8 were recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed. 4. After the death of late Babunidas, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an application for getting their name recorded over the other properties left behind by late Babunidas, which was comprised in Plot Nos. 582, 500, 503Ka, 1158Ka and 2066M. Another application was filed by the father of the petitioners to record the names of the petitioners alongwith respondent nos. 6 to 8, on the basis of the gift deed dated 20.06.2014 in which it was stated that ‘in respect of remaining property, the donee shall be the owners’. The Tehsildar, respondent no. 2, by his order dated 12.04.2025 rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioner and allowed the application of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 directing their names to be recorded over the property held by late Babuni. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, which has been dismissed by the order dated 16.03.2026. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the averment contained in the gift deed stating that the donee shall be the owners of the remaining property was the last wish of the recorded tenure holder, late Babuni, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 to 8 could not inherit on the basis of succession. It has been further contended that the respondent no. 2 erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground that the Will was not admissible in evidence as court fees regarding it had not been paid while registering the aforesaid document. The observation of the respondent no. 2 that as the gift deed has already been given effect to, the benefit of the last Will of the deceased is not available to the petitioners, is misplaced and unsustainable. It was further contended that the respondent no. 9 erred in dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioners, as they have failed to honour the last Will of the recorded tenure holder in respect of the land in dispute, 3 WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026 directing the petitioners to get their right declared from the court of competent jurisdiction. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, supporting the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 9, has contended that the gift deed dated 20.06.2014 was only in respect of 1/3 share in Plot No. 137, and no Will of the remaining property was executed in favour of the petitioners. A statement in the registered gift deed cannot be interpreted as the Will of the last recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute, late Babuni. It was further contended that the petitioners failed to prove the alleged execution of the Will in accordance with law, as such, the respondent no. 2 was justified in rejecting their application for mutation. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent nos. 3 to 5 are married daughters of late Babuni, who was the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute. The gift deed was executed by Babuni in favour of his brother’s son, transferring 1/3 share in Plot No. 137. The remaining property held by late Babuni is not mentioned in the document dated 20.06.2014. Even if it is assumed for the argument sake that the sentence “’ks"k tk;nkn ds ekfyd fgCck xzg.kdrkZ gh gksaxs” was the intention of late Babuni to execute a Will in favour of the donees, the said fact is disputed by his daughters creating it as a contested Will. 10. To acquire any right on the basis of a Will the legatee under the Will has to prove its due execution in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act which requires taking of evidence by the Tehsildar for the purposes of deciding the mutation application, for which he is not authorised in summary proceedings. Moreover, interpretation of sentence in the registered gift deed to be the Will of the last recorded tenure holder requires interpretation of documents which is in the domain of the Civil Court after appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble 4 WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026 Supreme Court in the case of Tarachandra Vs. Bhawarlal and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2902 considering a similar situation has held that, “in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/genuineness of the Will including competence of testator’s capacity to execute it, or where there are two rival Wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the competence of the Tehsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated”. 11. In the case in hand, the Will has been disputed by the married daughters of the deceased tenure holder. The alleged document claimed to be Will by the petitioners is in fact a registered gift deed where a sentence is being read as the last wish of the testator, which amounts to interpretation of a document, which is beyond the competence of the Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Board of Revenue, respondent no. 9, was justified in dismissing the revision of the petitioners with the observation that a serious dispute regarding interpretation of the document as Will has cropped up which requires adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction. 12. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required by this Court in the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 9, dated 12.04.2025 and 16.03.2026, respectively. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil Court for getting their rights adjudicated on the basis of the registered document dated 20.06.2014 claimed by them to be the last Will of the recorded tenure holder, late Babuni. (Arun Kumar,J.) May 5, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad