Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the present petition, the petitioner is claiming his right over agricultural plots of Khata No. 518, 606, 607, 841 situated in Village Gahalau, Pargana Hasangarh, Tehsil Iglas, District Aligarh on the basis of a Will dated 6.7.2002 executed in his favour by the tenure holder namely Radhey Shyam. In the year 2007, the petitioner filed an application for correction of entries and mutation of his name in place of the recorded tenure holder Radhey Shyam on the basis of the aforesaid Will. The mutation application was rejected on 29.5.2009 on the ground the Will was an unregistered document, no right could be claimed by the petitioner on the basis on the said Will. The names of other successors already recorded in PA-11A have been retained as such. This order was challenged in revision, which was dismissed on 30.9.2016 and hence this writ petition.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the summary proceeding of mutation under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, correctness/validity of the Will could not have been examined by the Revenue Authorities. Moreover, the Will executed in the year 2002 could not have been disbelieved on the ground that it was an unregistered document and no valid title was passed on to the petitioner.

3. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case Sobhnath Dube, In the matter of : Late Kashinath Dube, 2015(7) ADJ 252, to submit that the question of the Will being hit by the provisions of Section 169(3) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being unregistered Will has been decided by this Court. It has been held therein that it was not mandatory to get the Will registered prior to the amendment i.e. before 23.8.2004. Only requirement under Section 169(3) of the Act was that the bhumidhari land could be bequeathed by its holder by means of the Will in writing attested by two persons. The amended provision had been introduced by the Amendment Act namely U.P. Act No. 26 of 2004 w.e.f. 23.8.2004 and are prospective in nature, no retrospective effect can be given to it. The amended provisions of Section 169(3) of the Act cannot be applied to a Will which was executed prior to 23.8.2004 i.e. the date of its enforcement. This apart, it has been held that under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or the Indian Registration Act, 1908, there is no requirement of registration of testamentary instrument like the Will rather Section 18 of Indian Registration Act makes registration of Will optional. By amendment of U.P. Act, registration of Will cannot be made compulsory as it would be against the provisions of the Central Act.

4. With reference to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 169(3) of the Act cannot override the provisions of the Central Act i.e. the Indian Registration Act and, therefore, an unregistered Will of the agricultural land will not be hit by Section 169(3) of the Act.

5. In view of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the application of Section 169(3) of the Act which made the registration of Will to bequeath a bhumidhari land compulsory, the questions which have arisen for consideration before this Court are as to what would be the effect of amendment of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 26 of 2004 w.e.f. 23.8.2004, further as to whether the amendments by the State Legislature in the Act are in conflict with the provisions of Central Act i.e. the Indian Registration Act and whether the provisions of Indian Registration Act will override the amended provisions of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act making the registration of Will for devolution of agricultural land compulsory.

6. Even after time granted by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner did not provide much assistance to the Court on the aforesaid two questions put to him. He simply relied upon the judgment of