KIRAN PAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U P AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 34082 of 2022

Kiran Pal Singh
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State of U P and 5 others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Pawan Kumar Rao
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Amit Kumar, Ashish Singh, Birendra
                                  Kumar, CSC, Yogesh Kumar Singh

Court No. - 4
                  HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and Shri Ashish
Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Kumar
Chaudhary appearing for respondent No.5.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated
06.02.2020, 31.12.2020 and 17.06.2022, respectively passed by mutation,
appellate and revisional courts.

3. In a suit for division of holdings filed under Section 176 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shares of the parties
were determined and a preliminary decree was drawn on 10.03.2000. The
dispute in the present case inter se parties is essentially in relation to the
share of one Dharampal Singh, which was admittedly determined as 1/4
in the total area of 22 gatas measuring 9.854 hectares. Therefore,
Dharampal Singh acquired share to the extent of 1/4 of 9.854 hectares,
qua which there is no dispute between the parties.

4. It appears from the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
                                                        WRIC No. 34082 of 2022
                                2


that the preliminary decree and subsequent proceedings based thereupon
reached to the Board of Revenue and then upto this Court and after
remand again to the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Meerut and
pursuant to some order passed by the Circuit Bench, another petition is
pending before this Court.

5. In light of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that
this petition should be connected with the said writ petition, this Court
first proceeded to hear the matter at length as to whether there is at all any
necessity for such connectivity.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that an illegal
order dated 06.02.2020 was passed directing mutation in favour of
respondent No.5 namely Smt. Beena based upon a Will executed by
Dharampal Singh and the petitioner was not heard in those proceedings.
In an appeal filed against the said order by Sukhpal Singh, i.e. respondent
No.6, the petitioner filed an impleadment application which was rejected
and simultaneously, the appeal was also dismissed on 31.12.2020.
Whereas the respondent No.6 did not prefer any revision against the said
order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed on 17.06.2022
by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut.

7. Further submission is that the Will is forged, fabricated and
manufactured document and much emphasis has been laid on the recital
contained in the said Will wherein the Testator-Dharampal Singh had
indicated bequeath in respect of 1/2 share in the property. Vehement
submissions have been made that once Dharampal Singh's share in the
partition decree was determined only to the extent of 1/4, he could not
have executed Will in respect of 1/2 share and, therefore, such a recital
shall be and is being utilized by the beneficiary of the Will throughout the
proceedings as if she acquired 1/2 share, which would prejudice the rights
of the petitioner whose share was determined as 1/12.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has made
submissions that petitioner has no locus in these proceedings and the
mutation orders impugned in this petition would not affect rights of the
petitioner, inasmuch as, mutation order has been passed based upon the
                                                        WRIC No. 34082 of 2022
                                3


Will. Submission is that whatever share of Dharampal was declared in the
partition proceedings, the same stands devolved by testamentary
succession upon the respondent No.5 and not over and above the same
and, therefore, the share of the petitioner, being unaffected by the
impugned proceedings, there is no merit in the writ petition.

9. It is further submitted that the first Court which ordered mutation has
indicated expunging the name of Dharampal Singh from his appropriate
share and the words used are "यथोचित भाग" and even quantifying the share
of Dharampal Singh would infer that it is not over and above 1/4 of 9.854
hectares.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner
also has a share in the property based upon decree drawn in partition
proceedings. As to what would be the effect of that decree subsequently
in terms of orders which have been passed in those proceedings and also
the writ petition, which is said to be pending now, in the opinion of the
Court, would not affect the result of these proceedings, particularly, in
view of the limited challenge made to the orders impugned.

11. It has come on record that Will has been challenged by the petitioner
in a civil suit. Be that as it may, all questions in relation to Will inter se
parties to the civil suit can always be examined by the civil court and this
Court has no jurisdiction to comment upon the said proceedings.

12. As far as the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.5 would
take benefit of recital contained in the Will wherein 1/2 share has been
shown to have been bequeathed in her favour over and above 1/4 share of
Dharampal Singh is concerned, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.5 has made submission that in view of the order dated 06.02.2020 read
with preliminary decree dated 10.03.2000, the share succeeded by
respondent No.5 may be clarified as 1/4 only.

13. In view of the above discussion, this petition is disposed of with the
observation that mutation entries made based upon Will executed by
Dharampal Singh would mean and would be given effect only to the
extent of 1/4 share of Dharampal Singh and not beyond that.
                                                                                      WRIC No. 34082 of 2022
                                                                 4


                                    14. All consequential entries wherever the same have been made so far
                                    shall follow this order and parties are at liberty to move appropriate
                                    applications before the competent authorities.

                                    15. The orders impugned in the writ petition stand modified and
                                    explained as such.



                                                                                    (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Jyotsana




Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad