HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4344 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Islam Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate holding brief of N.A. Khan for the respondent nos. 5 to 9. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 12.6.2026, 9.2.2000 and 18.10.1996, passed by the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Hafiz Ali, the name of her widow, Rukaiya Begum, was recorded in the revenue records. The respondent nos. 5 to 9 moved an application that as Rukaiya Begum has remarried, her name may be expunged from the land in dispute and their names be recorded as heirs of late Hafiz Ali. The application moved by the contesting respondents was allowed by the order of the Naib Tehsildar, dated 18.10.1996, which was upheld in appeal by the order of the respondent no. 3, dated 9.2.2000. The Additional Commissioner in Revision set aside the aforesaid orders, rejecting the application moved by the contesting respondents. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 8.3.2001, the contesting respondents filed revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the order dated 17.12.2004. The said order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by late Rukaiya Begum in Writ - B No. 21598 of 2005, which was allowed by the judgment and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Islam Ahmad, Mohammad Anas Raza Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nayab Ahmad Khan Smt. Fatima Begum Alias Kishwar .....Petitioner(s) The Board Of Revenue And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) order of this Court, dated 26.11.2024, relegating the matter back to be decided afresh for recording categorical finding on the question of remarriage of Rukaiya Begum. Pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court, the Board of Revenue by its order dated 12.6.2026, has again allowed the revision of the contesting respondents, upholding the order passed by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and the factum of remarriage of Rukaiya Begum. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence on record showing remarriage of Rukaiya Begum does not relate to her, as it shows different name of her father and her age and address also not factually correct. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the date, Rukaiya Begum became widow, she was 46 years of age and the evidence of remarriage shows her age to be 30 years. The fact that there is discrepancy in the name of her father and address has not been taken into consideration by the authorities while allowing the claim of the contesting respondents. It has been further contended that the oral evidence led by Rukaiya Begum has also not been considered properly to arrive at the conclusion that she had remarried. 7. Per contra, the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 5 to 9, has contended that the respondent nos. 3 & 4 have recorded a categorical finding regarding remarriage of Rukaiya Begum, however, the Additional Commissioner on the slight discrepancy of name of her father, has set aside the orders passed by them. It has been further contended that the Board of Revenue, the respondent no. 1, has upheld the said orders, in accordance with law, as it could not have re-appreciated fresh evidence to arrive at a different conclusion under its revisional jurisdiction. 8. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The order of respondent nos. 3 & 4, alongwith the order of Board of Revenue, dated 17.12.2004, was challenged by late Smt. Rukaiya Begum in Writ B No. 21598 of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed only on the ground that no finding had been returned on the fact that Rukaiya WRIB No. 4344 of 2026 2 Begum had not remarried before passing the order dated 17.12.2004. Pursuant to remand, the Board of Revenue, has considered the evidence, considered by the respondent nos. 3 & 4 to arrive at the conclusion that Rukaiya Begum had remarried Laique Mohammad, resident of Bhopal. 10. A perusal of the orders passed by the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4 shows that the argument of counsel for the petitioner regarding the difference in address and age of Rukaiya Begum was not part of her objection and had been taken for the first time in the written argument filed before the Board of Revenue after remand. 11. The respondent no. 1 was justified in upholding the orders passed by the respondent nos. 3 & 4, as in revision, he could not have reconsidered the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. Considering the appreciation of evidence by the respondent nos. 3 & 4, merely on the basis of a slight difference in the name of father of Rukaiya Begum, the fact of her remarriage in presence of other evidence on record, cannot be denied. 12. Moreover, the present proceedings are summary proceedings, which are undertaken only for fiscal purposes and they neither create distinguish rights. The petitioner has a remedy of declaration of her rights before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the appreciation of evidence can be made. The factum of remarriage and relationship cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits and the findings recorded in the summary proceedings are always subject to final adjudication made by court of competent jurisdiction. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any justification for interfering with the orders challenged in the present writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 29, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 4344 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad