Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45149 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26720 of 2019 Petitioner :- Virendra Singh And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Revenue And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukhveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Khan,Gyan Singh,Manju Nagaur,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sukhveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 5 and Ms. Manju Nagaur for respondent No.s 8 and 9. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 9.4.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Dariyabad, Tehsil Ram Sanehighat, District Barabanki and as contained in Annexure No.1, order dated 29.5.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and contained in Annexure No.2 and order dated 6.6.2016 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil- Ramsanehighat, Barabanki and contained in Annexure No.s 13, 14 and 15 to the writ petition. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to succession of the property of one Shyam Lal Singh. It is stated that Hari Karan Singh, the original tenure holder had two sons, namely, Narendra Bahadur Singh and Shyam Lal Singh. Petitioner No.1 Virendra Singh is the son of Narendra Bahadur Singh while his uncle is Shyam Lal Singh. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed their right through Kalawati, who is wife of Shyam Lal Singh. It has been stated that Shyam Lal Singh, who is husband of Kalawati (opposite party No.6), had executed unregistered will on 12.11.1992 bequeathing his entire immovable property in favour of the petitioner. Shyam Lal Singh died on 18.1.1993 and subsequently the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 12 of Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (in short C.H. Act) passed orders in favour of the petitioner on 7.1.1994 in suit No.486 on the basis of unregistered will dated 12.11.1992. 4. The order passed under Section 12 was implemented in proceedings under Rule 109 A of U. P. C. H. Rules on 30.10.2000 and the revenue records were also corrected on the basis of the proceedings under Rule 109 A of Consolidation of Holdings Rules and the name of the petitioner (Virendra Singh) was incorporated in khatauni for the fasli years 1407 to 1409 vide order dated 29.5.2018 and deleted the name of Kalawati Devi on 18.11.2004. That application for restoration moved by opposite party No.6 for recall of order dated 18.11.2004 was allowed on 18.12.2005 and against the order dated 18.12.2005, the petitioner preferred a revision which was decided on 20.8.2010 and the matter was remanded back for being decided after obtaining adequate evidence. 5. It has further been stated that in the meanwhile name of Kalawati was incorporated in PA 11 on 9.4.2016 despite the fact that Shyam Lal Singh had bequeathed the entire immovable property in favour of the petitioner while, on the other hand, Kalawati sold the land of Shyam Lal Singh on the basis of registered sale deed to one Ashish Singh by registered sale deed on 23.1.2016. After execution of the sale deed Ashish Singh moved application under Section 34 of L.R. Act where by means of order dated 9.4.2016 his name was directed to be entered into the revenue records. The petitioner had challenged order dated 9.4.2016 before Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and his revision was also dismissed on 29.5.2018. Subsequently Ashish Singh also sold the said land in favour of Gyaneshwar Singh and Smt. Anju Srivastava i.e. opposite party No.s 8 and 9 to this petition. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to challenge orders dated 9.4.2016, 29.5.2018 and 6.6.2016. 6. The main plank of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that in the proceedings under Section 12 of C.H. Act name of the petitioner was duly entered into revenue record in place of Shyam Lal Singh by means of order dated 7.1.1994 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, Dariyabad, Barabanki which order has never been assailed by any of the respondents in any of the proceedings. He submits that subsequently orders have been passed in the proceedings under Section 34 of L.R. Act as well as 34 of U.P. Revenue Code which are summary proceedings and once appropriate orders have been passed under Section 12 of C.H. Act then the said order would override all the orders including the one under Section 34 of L.R. Act and even otherwise the authorities ought to have acted in compliance of the orders passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. 7. It has further been stated that till date the will deed executed by Shyam Lal Singh in favour of the petitioner has remained unquestioned and has not been assailed before any forum or court and, therefore, the revenue authorities cannot take a stand contrary to the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities and accordingly had passed the impugned orders. 8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order passed under Rule 109 A never became final and subsequently has opposed the claim made by the petitioner. It has further been stated that Kalawati was the wife of Shyam Lal Singh and was entitled to succeed the properties of her husband and accordingly all the respondents claiming their rights from Kalawati have supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The facts in the present case are not disputed in as much as it pertains to the property of Shyam Lal Singh, who was survived by his wife Kalawati Devi but during his life time he has executed a will deed on 12.11.1992 in favour of the petitioner which was his nephew. A perusal of the aforesaid will deed will clearly indicated that by the said will deed he has not only bequeathed his entire immovable property in favour of the petitioner but clearly excluded opposite party No.6 from all his immovable properties. He has clearly stated that after his death the entire immovable properties situated in Majhela and Baghauli and also in case there are any other properties would be succeeded by the petitioner. It is on the basis of the said will that the proceedings under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act was finally heard and decided by Assistant Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 7.1.1994 and the petitioner came to be recorded in the revenue records after deletion of name of Shyam Lal Singh. Subsequently, Kalawati entered into sale deeds and sold the land of Shyam Lal Singh to private respondents and it is on this basis that the proceedings under Section 34 of L.R. Act came to be instituted for mutation where the orders were passed in their favour where they have not only suspected the genuineness of the will deed executed in favour of the petitioner but have also not relied upon the orders passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. 11. In these circumstances, it is noticed that regular proceedings under Section 12 are to be followed in proceedings under Section 34 of L.R. Act and these aspects of the matters was duly considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Bhagwan Dei (dead) through legal heirs Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, reported in 2010 (110) RD 747 the relevant para of which is quoted as under:- "It therefore follows that issue as to whether the compromise was signed by the plaintiff or not was raised earlier before the consolidation authorities and was decided on merits by them. The said issue now cannot be permitted to be raised again in view of Section 11 of CPC. The consolidation authorities were not only competent but were obliged to decide all the issues relating to right, title and interest of the parties which had arisen after the name of Smt. Samudra Devi on account of her death, but before the date of notification under section 52 of the Act as provided for under section 12 of the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Malkhan Singh (Supra) has held that a decision given in such fact situation will be a decision under section 12 of the Act and it will be decision on the rights, title and interest of the parties. On such decision no other Court can adjudicate upon subsequently, as provided under section 49 of the Act." 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that once order under Section 12 of C.H.Act became final then it was not open for respondent No.6 or any other person claiming through respondent No.6 to change the nature of the order of proceedings under Section 34 of L.R. Act. The proceedings under Section 12 are binding upon any other proceedings for mutation which are mere summary proceedings. 13. Apart from the above, we find that opposite party No.6 never challenged the order under Section 12 before any other court nor was the validity of the will deed assailed and, hence, these aspects of the matter remained un - controverted and consequently even the revenue authorities in proceedings for mutation would not have taken any contrary view of the matter. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.4.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Dariyabad, Tehsil Ram Sanehighat, District Barabanki and as contained in Annexure No.1, order dated 29.5.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad, Division, Faizabad and contained in Annexure No.2 and order dated 6.6.2016 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki and contained in Annexure No.s 13, 14 and 15 to the writ petition, are set aside. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench