Mutation proceeding does not confer any right or title, and the title of the property can only be decided by a competent civil court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record, at admission stage.

2. Challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent no. 2) and order dated 14.09.1983 passed by Naib Tehsildar in proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.

3. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that the property in question belongs to one Lakhai. After the death of Lakhai, name of his wife Smt. Jhulari came to be recorded in the revenue record. After the death of Jhulari, dispute arose with respect to her succession. It appears that after her death, respondent no. 5 has filed an application for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. During pendency of mutation application name of the present petitioner is recorded in the revenue record through PA-II on 03.02.1983. The Naib Tehsildar has allowed the aforesaid application filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, vide its order dated 14.09.1983, issuing a direction to record the name of respondent no. 5 in the revenue record in place of Smt. Jhulari and quashed the order dated 03.02.1983. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who has allowed the appeal, vide order dated 30.10.1986, and quashed the order dated 14.09.1983. Having being aggrieved, respondent no. 5 has filed a revision, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (respondent no. 3), vide order dated 10.06.1987, and referred the matter before the Board of Revenue for accepting the reference. Initially Board of Revenue has accepted the reference and allowed the revision, vide order dated 26.10.2018, but subsequently aforesaid order was recalled, vide order dated 18.12.2018, on the recall application filed on behalf of petitioner and finally, vide order dated 02.03.2022, Board of Revenue has accepted the reference made by Commissioner to allow the revision and set aide the order dated 30.10.1986 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue have lost sight of the factor that respondent no. 5 is claiming his right and title on the basis of the will deed dated 03.02.1982 said to have been executed by Jhulari whereas she herself had died on 31.01.1982 prior to the date of execution. It is further submitted that Sub Divisional Officer in its order dated 30.10.1986 has discussed the matter in detail and came to a conclusion that Jhulari was died on 31.01.1982, therefore, will deed dated 03.02.1982 is doubtful. It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue have illegally allowed the revision filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 on the ground that the death certificate was not filed proving the date of death of Jhulari to be dated 31.01.1982. It is further submitted that both the courts have illegally ignored the family register wherein date of death was mentioned. It is next submitted that the family register is a public document and the same should be relied upon by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relief upon the case of Mohammad Salim (D) vs. Shamsudeen (D) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2019(4) SCC 130. To strengthen the right and title of the petitioner over the property in question, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Mursuthi vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, reported in 2018 (10) ADJ 793 and the case of Shahzad vs. State of U.P., reported in 2019 (4) ADJ 502.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the Additional Commissioner has given a categorical finding that there was no direct evidence with respect to the date of death of Jhulari, who according to the petitioner had died on 31.01.1982. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 2