Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29787 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 950 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Shakuntala Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Devraj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.K Asthana,Harish Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.K. Asthana and Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Service of notice to respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 is sufficient as per office report dated 08.05.2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the mutation proceeding initiated under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was decided by Tehsildar in favour of petitioners on the basis of succession and the claims set up by respondent no. 7 on the basis of unregistered will deed has been refused by Tehsildar vide order dated 04.01.2024. Against the order passed by Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur dated 04.01.2024 a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was filed by the respondent Rameshwar Dubey and others was admitted by board of revenue on 31.01.2024, notice was issued to the other side, record was summoned and interim order was granted staying the operation of the order dated 04.01.2024. Hence this writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P., Prayagraj in Revision No. 182 of 2024 Rama Shankar Dubey and others Vs. Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur and others as well as the aforesaid revision pending before the Board of Revenue. (ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners." 4. This Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 entertained the matter and stayed the operation of the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Board of Revenue as well as further proceeding of revision no. 182 of 2024 was also stayed. In pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2024 contesting respondents have filed their counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that jurisdiction under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been properly exercised by Tehsildar for recording the name of the petitioners on the basis of succession and rejecting the claim of contesting respondents set up on the basis of unregistered will deed. He further submitted that mutation order passed by Tehsildar cannot be stayed or set aside in summary jurisdiction rather aggrieved party can file suit for declaration of their right. He next submitted that Board of Revenue without assigning any reason, has stayed operation of the order passed by Tehsildar, as such the order passed by Board of Revenue should be set aside as well as entire proceedings of the revision should be quashed giving liberty to contesting respondent to file suit for declaration of their rights. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents submitted that Tehsildar has decided the dispute under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in arbitrary manner, as such the contesting respondents have filed revision which is pending before the Board of Revenue, as such instant writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that writ petition against the order passed in the mutation proceeding is not maintainable, as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He further placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2024 Law Suit (All) 824 Pramila Tiwari Versus Anil Kumar Mishra & 4 others in which sub-Section-(3) of Section-169 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been declared void. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the facts that the claim of the petitioners under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 04.01.2024 and claim of the contesting respondents has been rejected. There is also no dispute about the facts that in revision filed by contesting respondents before Board of Revenue has been entertained and the operation of the order passed by Tehsildar has been stayed. There is also no dispute about the fact that this Court by way of interim order has stayed the proceedings of the revision as well as stayed the interim order dated 31.01.2024 granted by Board of Revenue during the pendency of revision. 9. Considering the facts that revision filed by the contesting respondent is pending before the Board of Revenue and Tehsildar has already exercised his jurisdiction under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for recording the name of the petitioners, the pending revision should be decided by board of revenue in accordance with law without staying the operation of the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by Tehsildar. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the part of the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj by which operation of the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by Tehsildar has been stayed, is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 11. The writ-petition is allowed in part and respondent no.2/Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision no. 182 of 2024 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad