Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41794 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 680 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Kamrun Nisha Ansari And Others Respondent :- Chairman Board Of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kushal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. In light of the proposed order, issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to the succession of the property in land of one Futaini son of Ali Bux. According to the petitioner, Futaini was recorded Bhumidhari/ tenure holder of the land situated at Gata No.110/0-8-4 hetare situated at Village Mungar, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. 4. It has been stated that the said land was granted by the competent authority in 1976 and his name was recorded as Bhumidhar (having non-transferable right). It is during his life that Futaini has executed a Will in favour of Sultan Ahmad, father of the petitioner, on 16.02.1981 and subsequently, he died. After the death of Futaini, Sultan Ahmad came in possession of the said property. After the death of Sultan Ahmad, the petitioner no.1 came to be in possession of the said property. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 13.01.1992 vesting the land in favour of the State holding that Futaini had died without leaving behind any legal heir and therefore, the land would vest in the State. On coming to know about the order dated 13.01.1992, Sultan Ahmad moved an application for recall stating that Futaini had executed a registered Will in his favour on 16.02.1981 and accordingly, prayed that land recorded in favour of Sultan Ahmad. 5. Similarly another objection was filed one Mohammad Jaheer claiming the said land on the basis of patta. Both the matters were decided on merits and applications were rejected by order dated 10.01.2005 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur. 6. Against the order dated 10.01.2005, revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division, Faizabad, who allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 10.01.2005 and restored the order dated 13.01.1992 vesting the said land in favour of the State. Against the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division, Faizabad, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been rejected by means of the impugned order. While rejecting the revision, it has been recorded that in Paper No.56 pertaining to 1394-1399 fasli as well as from perusal of the Katauni available, it was evident that in the katauni, it was recorded that Futaini had non- transferable rights and accordingly, the bar of Section 170 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act would apply and he could not transfer the said land even on the basis of Will. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and recording the said reasons, he rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2025. 7. Considering the impugned order as well as the material available on record, there is no dispute in the present case that the rights that would flow to the petitioner only through Futaini who undoubtedly registered a Will in favour of the petitioner on 16.02.1981, but the moot question which fall for consideration is whether any right in property would flow on the basis of the Will where the author of the Will himself did not have any transferable right in the land. I find that the reasons for rejecting the revision are that in the revenue record pertaining to 1394-1399, Futaini has been shown to be a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. I do not find any document or material or any other legal provision by which the rights in the land could have been perfected by the tenure holder i.e. Futaini or that in the meanwhile he became a Bhumidhar with transferable rights. In absence of any such documents or claim by the petitioner, I find that Futaini did not have transferable right in the said land and was therefore incompetent to transfer any rights in the land in favour of the petitioner and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue or the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad Division. Adequate reasons have been given by the authorities below for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. While on the other hand, the petitioner could not produce or indicate any material which may show that Futaini has transferable rights in the said land. 8. For the reasons above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 22.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench