Allahabad High Court

SMT. FATIMA BEGUM ALIAS KISHWARversusTHE BOARD OF REVENUE AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Court held that the Board of Revenue was correct in upholding the earlier orders as it could not re‑appreciate evidence in revision, and the petition lacked merit.

Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Fatima Begum, challenged orders that removed her name from land records on the ground that her widow, Rukaiya Begum, had allegedly remarried. The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, where lower authorities had allowed the removal based on a remarriage finding, which was later set aside by the Additional Commissioner due to discrepancies in the evidence. On revision, the Board of Revenue upheld the earlier orders, stating it could not re‑appreciate evidence in summary proceedings. The petitioner argued that the evidence of remarriage was unreliable because of inconsistencies in age, father's name, and address, and that oral evidence was ignored. The Court held that the Board was justified in its decision, as revisional jurisdiction does not permit fresh evidence appraisal and the matter should be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the Board of Revenue can re‑appreciate evidence and set aside earlier orders on the basis of alleged discrepancies in the remarriage evidence of Rukaiya Begum.
Whether the revisional authority under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, is limited to reviewing the legality of the earlier orders without re‑examining factual evidence.
Whether the petitioner can obtain relief in a summary revenue proceeding despite alleged inconsistencies in age, father's name, and address of the alleged remarried widow.

Legislation cited

U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — s. 34

Subjects

U.P. Land Revenue Act
Section 34
revision
summary proceedings
remarriage
revenue records
evidence appraisal
court jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4344 of 2026

Smt. Fatima Begum Alias Kishwar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

The Board Of Revenue And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Islam Ahmad, Mohammad Anas Raza
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nayab Ahmad Khan

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
WRIB No. 4344 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 29, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…