Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36901 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5717 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramrati Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration)Lucknow Division,Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Tiwari,Shilpi Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party nos.1 and 2. 2. In light of proposed order, notice to private opposite party is dispensed with. 3. The dispute raised by petitioner in the present case is with regard to land situated at gata no.447/0.216 hectares, 83/0.506 hectares and 1461K/0.126 hectares situated at village Chiloli, Pargana, Ghatampur, Tehsil Bighapur, District Unnao. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that with regard to aforesaid land the petitioner claims the title on the basis of will deed executed on 10.08.1994 by one Chaudhi, son of Teja, who was the recorded tenure holder according to the petitioner. The dispute in the said case has arisen as the legal heirs of Chaudhi who was the private opposite party in the present case, are also claiming title of the said land. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the dispute came to be decided by the Additional Commissioner, (Administration) in case no.536 of 2022 instituted by the petitioner under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act. The Additional Commissioner, (Administration) has rejected the application of the petitioner inasmuch as it could not be proved that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was a Bhumidhar with transferable rights, failing which it further could not be established that the petitioner had any legal rights to succeed on the disputed land. 5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the facts emanating from the orders impugned in the present case, Chaudhi was granted a patta in 1975 and further submitted that as per Section 170 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950, no bhumidhar with non transferable rights or asami shall have the right to bequeath by Will his holding or part thereof and accordingly submitted that even if legal and valid will was executed by Chaudhi no right and interest in the said land would devolve upon the petitioner. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that due to efflux of time, he has become a bhumidhar with transferable rights and consequently has prayed for interference by this Court in the present case. 7. Considering the rival submissions, the Court finds that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner are under Sections 33/34 of U.P Land Revenue Act pertaining to mutation which undoubtedly are summary proceedings and the aspect of the title would not be decided in such summary proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner has to establish his title to the said land only then his rights can be fructified and accordingly for the said purpose the petitioner will necessarily have to institute a suit proceedings under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code which specifically provides for determination of rights in the matter which is placed before this Court in the present proceedings. The Court further noticed that as per provision of Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, the proceedings under Sections 33/34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act would not bar a suit under section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code nor can limit the power of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the authority trying the suit to be bound by the findings recorded in the proceedings under Section 33/34 which necessarily would have to be decided on the basis of evidence and material on record adduced by the respective parties. The Court also noticed the fact that mutation proceedings will not confer any right or title on any person and whenever a person takes his claim to title over the property then the right has to be established before the court of competent civil jurisdiction and in the present case under section 144 of U.P Land Revenue Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid legal provision. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to his remedy under Section 144 of U.P.Land Revenue Act. In case, suit is filed expeditiously, say within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided with expedition. Similarly any application for interim relief if moved therein would also liable to be considered and decided with expedition and parties undertake to cooperate in the said proceedings. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mathur,J) Order Date :- 1.7.2025/Renu Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench