HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8065 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri S. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the dispute in the present case is pertaining to the mutation with regard to property situated at Khata No. 564, Gata No. 691 situated at Village Mahuwa, Pargana - Khandasa, Tehsil - Milkipur, District - Ayodhya which was recorded in the name of Shivpata. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that Shivpata W/o Late Mata Prasad has executed a registered will in favour of Vimla Devi (petitioner No. 1) and Shushila on 13.09.2011. On the other hand, the claim by the private respondents is on the basis of another registered will dated 02.12.2003 executed by Smt. Shivpata in favour of petitioners and Kamla Devi. 5. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Milkipur, District Ayodhya decide the said dispute U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act by means of order dated 27.07.2023 and allowed the application of the petitioners and directed her name to be recorded in the revenue records. 6. Against the order dated 27.07.2023, the private respondents had filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Milkipur. The Sub- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saryu Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vimla Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) Divisional Magistrate, Milkipur allowed their appeal by means of order dated 04.10.2024 and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding it afresh after duly considering the evidence on record and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Milkipur duly considered the fact that in the present case there are two Wills executed in favour of both the parties by Shivpata and accordingly in the aforesaid circumstances remanded the matter. 7. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 has filed a revision before teh Additional Commissioner (Administration) which has been decided by order dated 27.02.2025 and the aforesaid orders have been assailed in the present case. 8. It is noticed that Additional Commissioner (Administration) has duly considered the fact that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Milkipur had remanded the matter back and did not find any ground to interfere in teh said order and therefore rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners. 9. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for petitioners have submitted that a suit has been preferred by the petitioners in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Faizabad where an interim injunction dated 07.05.2024 is existing in favour of the petitioners. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances firstly considering the matter has been remanded back before the Tehsidlar for considering afresh and secondly a civil suit has already been preferred by the petitioners which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Faizabad, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the impugned order considering the various judgments of this Court with regard to interfere which can be made in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which are Lal Bachan vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2002 (93) RD 6, Smt. Hadisul Nisha vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad and others, 2021 (152) RD 426, Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Others, 2020 (146) RD 545, Awadhesh Singh vs. Additional Commissioner and others, 2017( 9) ADJ 378 and also a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191. WRIC No. 8065 of 2025 2 11. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners would have adequate opportunity in the remand proceedings apart from which the suit at the behest of the petitioners is already pending and accordingly in light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference. 12. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. August 28, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8065 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench