Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the orders dated 14.3.2014, 28.7.2014 and 17.11.2014 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Sadar Unnao, Deputy Collector/Assistant Collector 1st Class Sadar Unnao and Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow respectively declining the claim of the petitioner for mutation on the basis of an unregistered Will.

2. Shorn of details, necessary facts are that petitioner applied for mutation before the mutation Court on 1.12.1995 in respect of plot No. 652/1.292 hectare village-Murtazanagar, Tehsil-Sadar Unnao on the ground that original tenure holder Smt. Chandan had executed the Will on 26.10.1995. Daughters of the deceased Smt. Chandan filed objection. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 14.3.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner doubting the genuineness of the Will and ordered the mutation in the name of Smt. Neelam, daughter of Ramawati on the basis of succession in accordance with Section 174 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. An appeal was filed against the order dated 14.3.2014 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Sadar Unnao, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector on 28.7.2014. A revision was filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which too, was dismissed on 17.11.2014 by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. These very orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

3. Courts have doubted the genuineness of the Will relying upon the following circumstances:

“(a) Will was unregistered;

(b) Will was allegedly typed or prepared at Kanpur on 26.10.1995, while the deceased and petitioner resided in district Unnao;

(c) Smt. Chandan, who had executed the will died on 29.10.1995 in District Hospital, Unnao;

(d) On the date of execution of the Will, she was admitted in district hospital, Unnao where she died on the third day;

(e) There was no occasion to take deceased to Kanpur only for preparing the Will which could have been done at Unnao and could have been submitted for registration as well;

(f) Will was not proved in accordance with law as no marginal witness was produced nor any scribe or typist was produced;

(g) It had come in the evidence of Sri Vijay Shankar that after signing the Will, she started vomiting and her condition deteriorated and she was admitted in the hospital in the state of unconsciousness;

(h) There is no mention of daughters in the Will, the only mention is that there is no other son;

(i) Revisional Court also mentioned that original Will was neither produced before Civil Court nor before Revenue Court, and;

(j) In the Civil Court, case set up is that he was adopted by his grandmother, which was not found correct.”

4. Submission of Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that son of marginal witness had been examined who proved the Will as such, findings of Courts below that Will was not duly proved is not correct.

5. His further submission is that decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court relied upon by the Courts below does not show that all the Wills executed within eight days of the death would have to be treated as suspicious one.

6. Circumstances mentioned by the Courts below for dis-believing the Will cannot be said to be irrelevant or unfounded. Moreover, proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P.L.R. Act are summary in nature and they do not decide any matter finally. Rights in the land on the basis of Will can be established in regular revenue Courts. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily does not interfere with the findings of the facts. In this case, Court below have found that the Will does not appear to be genuine. This Court sees no good reason to interfere with the said finding.

7. It has been held in catena of decisions by this Court that proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P.L.R. Act are summary in nature and they do not confer any title finally as such writ peti