Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21380 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3550 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Shri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite parties and perused the record. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Opposite Party No.2 to accept the Transfer Application of petitioner i.e. R.C Prapatra-11, under section 34 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006, and further mutate the name of petitioner in place of his mother late Prabhawati, wife of late Ram Yagya Upadhyay, in the revenue records on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 20.09.2018." At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the expression "Transfer Application" in the prayer clause as also in paragraph 2 of the present writ petition could not be corrected inadvertently though ought to be and accordingly the same be read as "Application", which prayer has been accepted. Considered the averments made in the present writ petition which are to the effect that an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") was preferred on the basis of unregistered "Will" dated 20.09.2018 and therefore taking note of Section 107 (3) of the Code of 2006, the office of the opposite party No.2 has not entertained the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Code of 2006 and also considered the observations made by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs. Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhiti, Ambedkar Nagar, [Matter Under Article 227 No.4489 of 2024, order dated 16.10.2024] as also Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Surendran Vs. State, MANU/ SC/ 0486/ 2019, according to which the Office/Registry cannot refuse to entertain the application and appropriate order would be passed by the authority concerned. The relevant paragraph of the judgment passed in the case of P. Surendran (Supra) is extracted herein under :- "10.Therefore, we hold that the High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, we cannot sustain the order, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench." Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil - Bhiti, District - Ambedkar Nagar to entertain the application and pass appropriate order thereon, after taking note of the law on the issue including Section 107 (3) of the Code of 2006. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench