HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1036 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Shailesh Chandra Tiwari, on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Chanchal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri Shailesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5. 3. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 4. The dispute raised in the present writ petition pertains to the succession of the property, which was originally recorded in the name of Ram Dev. 5. It has been stated that Ram Dev had two sons, namely, Satya Narayan and Krishna Dutt (opposite party no.5) and Satya Narayan Singh had one son, namely, Ranvijay Singh (opposite party no.4). Ram Dev was the recorded tenure holder of Khata No. 245 Gata N. 407, 411 Ka, 414 Kha, 415 Kha, 426, 506, 507, 583, 571, 594 Ka and Khata No. 241 Gata No. 5, situated at Village Bankata Buzurg, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 6. The petitioner claims to have purchased Gata No. 405 by means of a registered sale deed executed by Krishna Dutt Singh on 1.1.2021 and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chanchal Kumar Pandey, Ashutosh Dhar Dubey, Parijat Mishra Belaura Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shailesh Chandra Tiwary Shravan Chauhan Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Smt. Susheela Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) immediately after the execution of the sale deed had moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code and by means of order dated 17.2.2021 his name was duly mutated in the revenue record. An application was given by Ranvijay Singh on the basis of sale deed executed by Ram Dev in favour of Ranvijay Sing on 13.4.1980. 7. It is on the application of opposite party no.4 that by means of the order dated 11.3.2024 the Tehsildar Aydohya, District Ambedkar Nagar passed an order recording all the Gata Nos. which were recorded in favour of Ranvijay Singh 8. The petitioner on coming to know of the order dated 11.3.2024 moved an application for recall and the Tehsildar noticed the previous order dated 17.12.2021 where name of Sharvan Chauhan was recorded in the revenue records and accordingly allowed the application for recall by means of order dated 12.4.2024. Against the order dated 12.4.2024 the opposite party no.4, preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, who remanded the matter back to the Tehsidlar for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties. 9. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is only with regard to the fact that there is no mention of determination with regard to Gata No. 405, for which a sale deed was executed by respondent no.5 in favour of the petitioner. 10. Counsel for the respondents has raised the preliminary objection stating that a sale deed was executed by Krishna Dutt Singh in favour of Sharvan Chauhan. He has further submitted that the application for recall was preferred by Shushila Devi w/o Sharvan Chauhan claiming that she is the power of attorney holder of Sharvan Chauhan. He submits that undoubtedly it was open to Sharvan Chauhan to have moved an application or file any objection in the pending litigation but Shushila Devi does not have any independent right, title or interest over the disputed property and all best she could have initiated and participated in the proceedings only at the behest of Sharvan Chauhan, while the application filed by her it is clear that she has litigated under her own name rather than under the name of Sharvan Chauhan, which she is WRIB No. 1036 of 2025 2 clearly not entitled, and therefore, the application itself was defective and not maintainable and should have been rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a suit for cancellation of sale deed is already pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that it was open for the respondents to have raised objections before the Board of Revenue but the same was not raised and consequently such an objection cannot be considered for the first time in the writ proceedings. 12. In any view of the matter, it is noticed that the matter stands remitted to the Tehsildar for determining afresh. It has also been observed by the Board of Revenue that all the concerned parties shall be afforded opportunity of hearing and to that extent there is no dispute between both the parties. 13. This Court is an agreement with the objections raised by the counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 that proper party in the writ case would be Sharvan Chauhan rather than Sushila Devi w/o Sharvan Chauhan. 14. Therefore, with the consent of parties the petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move any appropriate application on behalf of Sharvan Chauhan before the Tehsildar. I further find that in the interest of justice let the Tehsildar also proceed to decide the matter of mutation pertaining to Gata No. 405, for which registered sale deed has been executed in favour of Sharvan Shauhan. 15. Accordingly, in case any such application is moved the same shall be considered and decided by the Tehsildar, in accordance with law, while on the other hand it shall be open for the respondents to raise all the objections before the Tehsidlar, who shall proceed to consider and decide, in accordance with law. November 14, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 1036 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench