Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49011 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7995 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghave,Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapish Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of property held by grandfather of the petitioner namely Rajdev. After his death the property came to be recorded in the name of Smt. Lakhraji wife of late Rajdev and Babooram son of Rajdev and father of the petitioner. It has been submitted that Rajdev was the sole owner of the agricultural property comprising of gata No.s 984, 1047, 985 Kha, 1005, 931 and 982 situated in Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. . It is the case of the petitioner that his father did not have good relations with his mother Lakhraji while on the other hand, it is the petitioner who was continuously looking after Lakhraji pursuant to which she executed a will on 14.9.2020 which was registered on 30.9.2020 and certain properties would devolved upon the petitioner on the death of Lakhraji as per the said will. 4. It is stated that Smt. Lakhraji expired on 28.5.2023 and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code before Naib Tehsildar, Bhiyawan, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar where he produced the will executed by his mother Lakhraji. The Naib Tehsildar allowed the application of the petitioner by means of order dated 20.12.2023 and directed that the land situated at gata No.s 670 and 821 be mutated deleting the name of Lakhraji and mutating the name of the petitioner. 5. Against the order of mutation dated 20.12.2023 an application for recall was preferred by the petitioner as well as his father Babooram and were decided by a common order dated 7.6.2024 where the application for recall at the behest of his father was rejected. It was submitted that despite order under Section 34 having been passed in his favour on 20.12.2023 the revenue authorities have not complied with the same while on the contrary recorded the name of Babooram through PA 11 on 11.1.2024 and accordingly sought a direction for rectification of the said record in the name of Lakhraji again so that the order dated 20.12.2023 may be compiled with and while he rejected the application of Babooram and stating that in case he is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2023 he has the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. 6. Against the order dated 7.6.2024 and 20.12.2203 Babooram preferred an appeal before District Magistrate, who after considering the rival contentions, was of the view that Babooram was a necessary party in the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code being the son of Lakhraji and it is only part of the property that had devolved upon the petitioner by will while in remaining portion Babooram was entitled to succeed and accordingly the proceedings could not have been concluded without making Babooram as a party and consequently set aside the order dated 20.12.2023 and 7.6.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding the matter afresh after giving the parties adequate opportunity of hearing. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that recalling authority does not have power to recall and despite the order in favour of the petitioner passed under Section 34 still they proceeded to ignore the same while endorsing the name of Babooram in Form PA 11. 8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Babooram is a necessary party in the litigation. 9. Accordingly, considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to fact that Babooram was a necessary party to the said litigation who is father of the petitioner and son of Lakhraji. It is only on the basis of will that the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the entire property to the exclusion of Babooram and accordingly, we do not find an infirmity in the findings recorded by the appellate authority that Babooram was is a necessary party and he ought to have been heard before the Naib Tehsildar in proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code. It is for the said reason that the proceedings have been remanded back for decision afresh after after giving the parties adequate opportunity of hearing. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the appellate authority and in any view of the matter the petitioner will have full opportunity to place his case before the competent authority where the case under Section 34 would be decided. 10. In view of the above, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench