HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10697 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri D. P. Dutt Tiwari, who has appeared on behalf of caveator - opposite party No.3 and Sri Pankaj Gupta on behalf of respondent No.4- Land Management Committee. 1. The dispute in the present case pertains to partition of the property which was initially recorded in the name of Jas Karan and on his death it came be recorded in the name of his wife Guru Dei and an application under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code was filed by respondent No.3 stating that after death of Guru Dei the land came to be recorded in the name of petitioner and respondents No.3 who are the sons of Guru Dei wife of Jas Karan and claimed half portion of the land each. Opposite party No.3 had appeared in the proceedings and filed his objections in which his main contention was that opposite party No.3 is not the same person in whose favour the property was mutated after death of Guru Dei and is an imposter and had further stated that Radhey Shyam has disappeared eight years earlier and is not seen and accordingly had opposed the suit proceedings. 2. The trial court after considering the rival contentions had noticed the 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh K. Tripathi, Anil Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., D.P. Dutt Tiwari, Dilip Kumar Pandey Radha Kamal .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner Administration, Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) fact that name of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were duly mutated in the revenue records in 2021 and no objection was filed by the petitioner. He has further taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not raised any objections with regard to his entitlement of the half share of the disputed property and accordingly declared the petitioner and respondent No.3 to be entitled to half portion of the property of late Guru Dei. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved by the aforesaid preliminary decree where only share of the petitioner and respondent No.3 were apportioned, preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner(Administration). It was stated that the suit itself was not maintainable as all the persons who are entitled to the property of Gurudei have not been made parties and on account of non- joinder of the parties the suit ought to have been dismissed. 4. The revisional court duly considered the grounds taken by the petitioner and found that the land situated at gata No. 10, area 0.082 hectare, gata No.11 area 0.550 hectare, gata No.205 area 0.076 hectare, gata No.233 area 0.240 hectare, gata No.295 area 0.063 hectare, gata No.297, area 0.089 hectare, gata No.342 area 0.346 hectare situated at Village Mahurakhurd, Pargana and Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow was recorded in the name of Gurudei and after death of Gurudei it came to be recorded in the name of Radhy Shaym and Radha Kamal sons of Jas Karan and their names were duly mutated in the revenue records. In the said proceedings which has been instituted at the behest of Radhey Shyam- the opposite party No.3, it was found that the property could be succeeded only by those persons whose names have been mutated in the revenue records and no objection thereto has ever been raised by the petitioner in the said proceedings and, therefore, did not find any merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner. Apart from the above, the revisional court was of the view that the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to half share in the disputed property and consequently rejected the revision. 5. WRIC No. 10697 of 2025 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court could not indicate or demonstrate as to who are the other persons who are entitled to the said property but were not made parties in the said proceeding. It could not be demonstrated also that the petitioner is entitled to more than half share in the disputed property and ultimately this Court is of the considered view that neither before the trial court nor before the revisional court nor before this Court there is any material to indicate that the order of trial court or the revisional court has any infirmity or that the petitioner is entitled to larger share of the property than what has been granted by the trial court. 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit or ground to interfere in the order impugned. The sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to proceed and after receiving Kurra reports conclude the proceedings with expedition in accordance with law. 7. Subject to aforesaid direction, the petition is dismissed. 8. November 11, 2025 RKM. WRIC No. 10697 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench