RISHIKESH PATEL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 8 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026

Rishikesh Patel And Another                              …..Petitioners(s)
                                     Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 8                           …..Respondents(s)
Others


Counsel for Petitioners(s)        : Chandra Prakash Singh, Shad Khan,
                                    Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Ashish Kumar, C.S.C., Dharm Vir
                                    Jaiswal, Harsh Vikram


Court No. - 55

                   HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1.    Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shad
Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 9 and Sri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5.

2.    The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of
the respondent nos. 2 & 9, dated 12.04.2025 and 16.03.2025
respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act, 1901.

3.    The facts of the case, as borne out from the writ petition are, that
the land in dispute was the holding of Babuni S/o Ram Lagan, who had
three daughters, the respondent nos. 3 to 5. After marrying the three
daughters, late Babuni lived alongwith his brother Chhote Lal and his
sons, the petitioners and respondent nos. 6 to 8. Babuni during his
lifetime executed a registered gift deed, dated 20.06.2014, transferring
his 1/3 share in Plot No. 137, area 1.153 hectare, situated in Village
                                     2
                                              WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026

Churaha, Maupakad, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganj, in favour of the
petitioners and respondent nos. 6 to 8. During lifetime of late Babunidas
the name of petitioners alongwith respondent nos. 6 to 8 were recorded
in the revenue records on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed.

4.    After the death of late Babunidas, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed
an application for getting their name recorded over the other properties
left behind by late Babunidas, which was comprised in Plot Nos. 582,
500, 503Ka, 1158Ka and 2066M. Another application was filed by the
father of the petitioners to record the names of the petitioners alongwith
respondent nos. 6 to 8, on the basis of the gift deed dated 20.06.2014 in
which it was stated that ‘in respect of remaining property, the donee shall
be the owners’. The Tehsildar, respondent no. 2, by his order dated
12.04.2025 rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioner
and allowed the application of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 directing their
names to be recorded over the property held by late Babuni.

5.    Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a Revision
before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, which has been
dismissed by the order dated 16.03.2026.

6.    It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
averment contained in the gift deed stating that the donee shall be the
owners of the remaining property was the last wish of the recorded
tenure holder, late Babuni, therefore, the respondent nos. 3 to 8 could not
inherit on the basis of succession. It has been further contended that the
respondent no. 2 erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners on
the ground that the Will was not admissible in evidence as court fees
regarding it had not been paid while registering the aforesaid document.
The observation of the respondent no. 2 that as the gift deed has already
been given effect to, the benefit of the last Will of the deceased is not
available to the petitioners, is misplaced and unsustainable. It was
further contended that the respondent no. 9 erred in dismissing the
Revision filed by the petitioners, as they have failed to honour the last
Will of the recorded tenure holder in respect of the land in dispute,
                                        3
                                                  WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026

directing the petitioners to get their right declared from the court of
competent jurisdiction.

7.     Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3
to 5, supporting the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 9, has
contended that the gift deed dated 20.06.2014 was only in respect of 1/3
share in Plot No. 137, and no Will of the remaining property was
executed in favour of the petitioners. A statement in the registered gift
deed cannot be interpreted as the Will of the last recorded tenure holder
of the land in dispute, late Babuni. It was further contended that the
petitioners failed to prove the alleged execution of the Will in
accordance with law, as such, the respondent no. 2 was justified in
rejecting their application for mutation.

8.     I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

9.     It is not in dispute that the respondent nos. 3 to 5 are married
daughters of late Babuni, who was the recorded tenure holder of the land
in dispute. The gift deed was executed by Babuni in favour of his
brother’s son, transferring 1/3 share in Plot No. 137. The remaining
property held by late Babuni is not mentioned in the document dated
20.06.2014. Even if it is assumed for the argument sake that the sentence
“’ks"k tk;nkn ds ekfyd fgCck xzg.kdrkZ gh gksaxs ” was the intention of late Babuni
to execute a Will in favour of the donees, the said fact is disputed by his
daughters creating it as a contested Will.

10.    To acquire any right on the basis of a Will the legatee under the
Will has to prove its due execution in accordance with Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act which requires taking of evidence by the Tehsildar
for the purposes of deciding the mutation application, for which he is not
authorised in summary proceedings. Moreover, interpretation of
sentence in the registered gift deed to be the Will of the last recorded
tenure holder requires interpretation of documents which is in the
domain of the Civil Court after appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble
                                                                     4
                                                                              WRIT – B No. - 1972 of 2026

                            Supreme Court in the case of Tarachandra Vs. Bhawarlal and another,
                            2025 SCC OnLine SC 2902 considering a similar situation has held that,
                            “in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/genuineness of the
                            Will including competence of testator’s capacity to execute it, or where
                            there are two rival Wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the
                            competence of the Tehsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate
                            course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the
                            dispute adjudicated”.

                            11.         In the case in hand, the Will has been disputed by the married
                            daughters of the deceased tenure holder. The alleged document claimed
                            to be Will by the petitioners is in fact a registered gift deed where a
                            sentence is being read as the last wish of the testator, which amounts to
                            interpretation of a document, which is beyond the competence of the
                            Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act,
                            1901. The Board of Revenue, respondent no. 9, was justified in
                            dismissing the revision of the petitioners with the observation that a
                            serious dispute regarding interpretation of the document as Will has
                            cropped up which requires adjudication by a court of competent
                            jurisdiction.

                            12.         In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required by this Court
                            in the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 9, dated 12.04.2025 and
                            16.03.2026, respectively. The present writ petition is accordingly
                            disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate
                            Civil Court for getting their rights adjudicated on the basis of the
                            registered document dated 20.06.2014 claimed by them to be the last
                            Will of the recorded tenure holder, late Babuni.


                                                                                         (Arun Kumar,J.)

                            May 5, 2026
                            Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad