Mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings and cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, a Will is a mode of succession and a report based on succession by Will is maintainable under Section 34.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri P. K. Mishra counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 dated 28th August, 2001 and 19th December, 2000 respectively.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are ; it is stated that the writ petition arises of the mutation proceeding, Shiv Balak who was father of the petitioner died on 15th November. 1997. A report was made and the names of the petitioner and his brothers were mutated in the khatauni as sons of Shiv Balak, deceased and entry was made by revenue inspector, The proceedings for mutation under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by the respondents claiming that their names should be mutated in place of Shiv Balak, deceased, on the basis of a registered Will dated 22nd February, 1997, executed by Shiv Balak, the deceased. The mutation proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act were allowed by Tahsildar vide his order dated 9th March, 1999. Against the aforesaid mutation order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 24. 1. 2000. A revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner, gorakhpur challenging the order dated 24. 1. 2000 of Sub-Divisional Officer. The revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner setting aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. The matter was taken up before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner challenging the order of additional Commissioner which revision has been rejected by the order dated 28th August, 2001. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th August, 2001 of the board of Revenue and the order dated 19th December, 2001 of Additional Commissioner.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, it is clear that the present writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue act. Mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings. This Court has held in several cases that writ petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be entertained against orders passed in proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act since the mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and do not adjudicate the rights of the parties. It has been held by this Court in Rani Devi v. Board of revenue. 1999 RD 633, that writ petition cannot be entertained against the orders passed in mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. K. Mishra, submitted that Will which is claimed to be executed is not a transfer within Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, hence the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction and this writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri P. K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Board of Revenue and several other authorities which are as under :

(1) 1973 RD 292, Hari Har Dutt Singh v. Smt. Raj Dei and Ors. (BR, FB ). (2) AIR (31) 194 Oudh 65, Raja Surendra Vikram Singh v. Rani Munia Kunwar and Anr. , (3) AIR 1922 Bom 295, Naraslnhdas Guru Sitaram Das and Anr. v. Khanderao Vinayak Joshi and Ors. , (4) AIR 1959 Jandk 62, Lal Devi Dass v. Panna Lal (DB), (5) AIR 1924 All 508, Kallu and Ors. v. Ganga Ram and Anr. , and (6) 1966 RD 194, Pitam and Anr. v. Umrao Singh and Ors. (HC ).

( 6 ) THE Full Bench judgment relied by counsel for the petitioner answered the reference in following words :

"a Will is not a transfer for purposes of Section 34, U. P. Land Revenue Act; it is a mode of succession, the other two being statutory succession and succession based on personal law. " the other judgments relied by counsel for the petitioner have laid down that the transfer does not include Will.