SMT LALLO DEVI @ CHANDRAWATI AND 2 OTHERSversusSUBHASH KUMAR PATEL AND 5 OTHERS

                                                    Order Reserved.
        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
        CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 145 of 2025

Smt Lallo Devi @ Chandrawati and 2 others
                                                         …..Applicant(s)

                                Versus

Subhash Kumar Patel and 5 others
                                                    …..Opposite Party(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Ashish Kumar Singh, Ramji Singh
                                    Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : C.S.C., M.N. Singh


Court No. - 68

            HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.


1.    The instant review petition has been preferred at the instance of

the applicants, who were the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the above

captioned writ petition seeking the review of the final judgment and

order dated 6.3.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition

No. 2872 of 2024 (Subhash Kumar Patel and others versus Board of

Revenue and others) whereby and whereunder the writ petition was

allowed against the review applicants.

2.    The writ petition was filed questioning the orders dated 16.5.2017,

23.2.2019, 12.4.2022 and 17.1.2024 passed by the Lekhpal, Naib
                                    2
                                                   CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

Tehsildar, Addl. Commissioner (Admin.) and the Board of Revenue,

respectively. The dispute between the parties related to Khata No. 91 of

village Karmajeetpur, Pargana Dehat Amanat, Tehsil and District

Varanasi which stood recorded in the name of Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra s/o Jawahar.

3.    It was the case of the writ petitioners/respondents herein that the

contesting respondents 6 to 8 (review applicants herein) by playing fraud

upon the revenue authorities by stating that Beerbal, the recorded tenure

holder, having died and claiming themselves to be his daughters whereas

in fact they were his married sisters obtained an order dated 15.03.2014

in Case No. 1391 of 2014 under Section 34 of the U.P. L.R. Act mutating

their names in his place. The review applicant No. 3 (respondent No. 8 in

the writ petition) made an application for issuance of a death certificate

in respect of Beerbal. An inquiry was conducted by the Municipal

Corporation, Varanasi as also the S.S.P. Varanasi and a report dated

05.12.2014 was submitted stating that there was no evidence of death of

Beerbal. On the detection of the fraud played, the Tehsildar (Judicial),

Sadar Varanasi vide order dated 02.05.2014 set aside the order dated

15.03.2014 mutating the names of the review applicants and dismissed

the mutation application. The order dated 02.05.2014 was assailed by the

review applicants before the Additional Commissioner (Administration)

in revision under Section 219 of the L.R. Act, 1901. The revision was

dismissed by a detailed order dated 05.08.2015. The review applicants

further challenged the order dated 05.08.2015 in revision before the

Board of Revenue which too dismissed the revision vide order dated
                                     3
                                                     CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

19.09.2016. The review applicants then approached this Court by means

of writ petition no. 48385 of 2016. The writ petition was decided vide

order dated 05.10.2016 relegating the review applicants (petitioners in

the writ petition) to the alternative remedy of filing a suit in view of

Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and directing that no

third party rights shall be created over the land in dispute for a period of

three months. It was contended that the review applicants instead of

filing a suit in collusion with the Lekhpal concerned again got their

names mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 16.05.2017. The

order dated 16.05.2017 was challenged by the writ petitioners

(respondent No. 6 herein) before this Court by filing Writ C No. 45527

of 2017. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2017

giving liberty to the writ petitioners to file an application under Section

38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the appropriate authority

within 15 days who was directed to pass final orders within three

months. The review applicants were restrained from transferring the

disputed land and status quo was directed to be maintained for a period

of four months. It was also submitted that this Court while passing the

order dated 22.09.2017 observed that the entry of names of the review

applicants was unauthorised and such fictitious entry could be corrected

under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4.    Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondent No. 1 to 6

herein) had argued that they preferred an application under Section 38 of

the Revenue Code, 2006 as directed before the learned SDM, (Sadar),

Varanasi. The S.D.M., however, on grounds untenable in law declined to
                                     4
                                                    CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

set aside the order dated 16.05.2017 mutating the names of the review

applicants vide order dated 23.02.2019. The writ petitioners (respondent

Nos. 1 to 6 herein) assailed the order dated 23.02.2019 by means of

Writ-C No. 23719 of 2019. The writ petition was, however, disposed of

by relegating the writ petitioners to file an appeal under Section 35(2) of

the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The writ petitioners filed appeal before

the SDM, Sadar Varanasi. The SDM dismissed the appeal vide order

dated 12.04.2022. The writ petitioners thereafter assailed the order dated

12.04.2022 in revision no. 872 of 2022 before the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue committing the same mistake dismissed the

revision filed by the writ petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2024.

5.    It had been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the writ

petitioners that the fraud played by the review applicants was apparent as

noticed by this Court under its order dated 22.09.2017 passed in Writ

Petition No. 45527 of 2017, yet the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the

Revenue Inspector under P.A.-11 mutating the names of the review

applicants was not set aside by the Lekhpal who was in collusion with

the review applicants. It was established on record that Beerbal @

Ramesh Chandra was very much alive as the review applicants had

themselves moved an application in O.S. No. 562 of 2003 stated to be

pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No. 5,

Varanasi admitting the fact that the whereabouts of Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra was not known since 12.01.2000 and civil death be presumed.

It was contended that till a competent court does not declare civil death,

it could not be presumed that Beerbal @ Ramesh Chandra had died and
                                     5
                                                     CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

till then, the review applicants could not claim to be heirs of the

deceased Beerbal. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition deserved

to be allowed.

6.    On the other hand, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel

representing the contesting respondents no. 6 to 8 (review applicants

herein) had submitted that the impugned orders were just and proper and

require no interference by this Court. The Revenue Authorities under the

impugned orders have accorded adequate reasons for arriving at findings

in favour of the answering review applicants and such findings are not

liable to be disturbed. The writ petitioners has utterly failed to show how

they have any right, title or interest in the khata in question and how they

are entitled to it in contrast to the review applicants. Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra expired on 15.07.2012 and certificate to that effect was issued

by the competent authority which has not been challenged. The orders

impugned were liable to be upheld and the writ petition liable to be

dismissed with costs.

7.    On the above backdrops, this Court proceeded to decide the lis

between the parties. It found that admittedly Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra son of Jawahar was the recorded Bhumidhar of the disputed

Khata No. 91. The writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 6 herein) were the

cousin brother and sons of the cousin brothers of Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra while the contesting respondents (review applicants herein)

were his real sisters. Both the writ petitioners and the contesting

respondents had set up their respective claims of succession over the

Khata No. 91. This Court under the order dated 6.3.2025 sought to be
                                     6
                                                   CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

reviewed, considering the respective submissions of the counsel for the

parties and taking note of the fact that undisputedly Beerbal @ Ramesh

Chandra had expired on 15.7.2012, the rights of the parties would flow

from Section 108 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which related to the

general order of succession to Male Bhumidhars, Asami and

Government Lessee held that the writ petitioners being the cousin

brothers and sons of the cousin brother of Beerbal @ Ramesh Chandra

while the contesting respondents 6 to 8 (review applicants) being the

married sisters of Beerbal @ Ramesh Chandra and not the married

daughters were not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased Beerbal

@ Ramesh Chandra. Accordingly, the order dated 16.5.2017 passed by

the respondent No 5, order dated 23.2.2019 passed by the respondent

No. 3 and order dated 12.4.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 as also the

order dated 17.1.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1 upholding the

claim of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 (review applicants) were set aside

and the writ petition was allowed.

8.    Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the

review applicants (respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the writ petition)

vehemently submits that this Court erred in concluding that the review

applicants were not entitled to succeed to the estate of their deceased

brother Beerbal @ Ramesh Chandra. Shri Singh has further submitted

that this Court while concluding its findings about death of Beerbal @

Ramesh Chandra although relied upon the provisions containing the

general order of succession of male Bhumidhar, however, escaped to

note that Beerbal was son of Jawahir and the petitioners were the sons of
                                        7
                                                            CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

real brother of Jawahir apart from two other brothers, namely, Hori lal

and Lal Chand. Since, father of the contesting respondents 6 to 8 (review

applicants), namely, Jawahir were four others and the petitioners

were/are the sons of one brother of father i.e. uncle’s sons, therefore, the

provisions of Section 108 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would have

no application and no share would devolve upon the said petitioners.

Shri Singh has also passed on a pedigree chart for the perusal of the

Court, which has been taken on record and is also reproduced

hereunder:-

                                     Bahadur


                                    Parshottam




Jawahir             Heera Lal               Hori Lal             Lal Chand
= Sursati


                    Phool Chandra                   Mool Chand
                    (Died)                          (P-2)



              Subhash      Badama           Vinod           Pramod       Malesh
              Kumar        Devi             Kumar           Kumar        Kumar
              Patel        (P-3)            (P-4)           (P-5)        (P-6)
              (P-1)




Birbal@       Chotey Lal        Bitthan             Lallo        Vipta
Ramesh        Lal               Devi                Devi         Devi
X             X                 (R-8)               (R-6)        (R-7)


9.     Having heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

review applicants and having given my anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced and materials placed on record, I find substance in
                                                                      8
                                                                                     CMRA No. - 145 of 2025

                            the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the review applicant.

                            Shri M. N. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents

                            here has not appeared despite due notice.

                            10.         A perusal of the provision of Section 108 (2) of the U.P. Revenue

                            Code, 2006, which governs the field and lays down the law for

                            succession of agricultural land shows that the review applicants being

                            the married sisters of the deceased Bhumidhar Beerbal @ Ramesh

                            Chandra are placed higher in line of succession i.e. Clause “h” and shall

                            inherit the estate of Beerbal @ Ramesh Chandra in exclusion of the writ

                            petitioners (respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein).

                            11.         The above being the legal position, I am satisfied that an error was

                            committed by the Court while passing the order dated 6.3.2025 and the

                            same is liable to be reviewed and is reviewed.

                            12.         Consequently, the review application is allowed. The order dated

                            6.3.2025 allowing the writ petition stands reviewed. The writ petition is

                            dismissed.

                            13.         Consequence to follow.



                                                                                 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

                            April 15, 2026
                            Ravi Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad