The main legal point established is the need for expeditious conclusion of proceedings and the proper application of Section 295 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, in converting probate proceedings into regular suit proceedings.

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.05.2013 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Admn.), Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Revision No.114 of 2011 (Mahdei v. Ajai Kumar & Ors.) under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act as well as the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Athgawan, Distt. Varanasi in Case No.14/495 and 66/517 under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act and for a direction to quash the entire aforesaid proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act.

3. On the matter being taken up on 10.07.2013, the Court has proceeded to pass the following interim order in favour of the petitioner:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.K. Parekh. Notice has been accepted by Sri Vivekanand holding brief of Sri Prem Prakash Yadav for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 and Sri H.C. Dwivedi has also accepted notice for the same respondents. Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav has accepted notice for the Gaon Sabha. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. All the respondents pray for and are granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall file a rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter. List thereafter.

Admit.

This writ petition raises a pure question of jurisdiction of the authorities to proceed to somehow the other help out the respondent nos. 5 to 7 which is apparent from their conduct and the orders on record.

The respondents have utterly failed to give any respect to the final judgment of the High Court dated 16.10.2012 in writ petition no. 32612 of 2008 whereby the possession of the petitioner has been prima facie accepted and confirmed in the proceedings arising out of the suit in relation to the land in dispute.

Apart from this, the probate proceedings initiated by the respondents is still pending. In the absence of any declaration in favour of the respondents, the idea to proceed to grant mutation to the respondent nos. 5 and 7 appears to be patently without jurisdiction.

Accordingly, until further orders of the court, the respondent no. 2 Naib Tehsildar and any other authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is hereby restrained from further proceeding in the matter in question."

4. This much is also reflected from the record that the petitioner had also filed injunction Suit No.841 of 2007 for the property in question against the private respondents in which on 3.2.2008 interim order has been passed against the respondents, which has been finally affirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.32612 of 2008 vide order dated 16.10.2012. Only in this backdrop, the aforesaid interim order had been passed by this Court.

5. It is also relevant to indicate that in connected Matters Under Article 227 No.1878 of 2017 (Mahdei v. Ajai Kumar & Ors.) the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Vth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi by which the amendment application under Section 295 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in Probate Case No.57 of 2017 (Ajay Kumar v. Mahdei) has been rejected. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has also assailed the entire proceedings of Probate Case No.57 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 23.5.2008 in the said writ petition has stayed the further proceedings in Probate Case No.57 of 2007, which was continuing till now. Finally, the said writ petition has been allowed by a judgment passed today with following observations:-

"Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Vth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi by which the amendment application under Section 295 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in Probate Case No.57 of 2007 (Ajay Kumar v. Mahdei) has been rej