JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Girja Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. List has been revised but no one is present on behalf of private respondents though names of many counsels appear in the cause list.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 22.12.1999 and 22.5.2000 passed by respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively in Appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1901”) and Revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901.

3. The short controversy engaging attention of the Court is as to whether respondent No. 7 Smt. Amna, who is alleged to be the step mother of deceased Taj Mohammad is entitled to succeed to the agricultural land left by Taj Mohammad who died issuless under the provision of Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1950”).

4. The brief facts are that one Saraf Ali had three sons namely Mustakin, Fateh Mohammad and Jamil. After the death of Saraf Ali, his three sons succeeded to his agricultural land. Mustakin died in the year 1985 leaving behind his sole son Taj Mohammad, who was minor at that time. Taj Mohammad died issuless in 1997. Respondent No. 7 Smt. Amna claim that after the death of Smt. Nyazen wife of Mustakin, from whom Taj Mohammad was born, married Mustakin. After the death of Taj Mohammad in 1997, Smt. Amna claimed to be legal heir. Proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1901 was initiated and the Tehsildar Modinagar vide order dated 24.01.1998 found that petitioner Jamil, who was the living male descendant of Taj Mohammad succeeded the ancestral property in view of Section 171 of the Act of 1950 and directed for mutating his name. The said order was put to challenge before Sub-Divisional Officer, Modinagar through Appeal 29 of 1999 under Section 210 of Act of 1901 which was allowed by the order dated 22.12.1999. Against the said order, petitioner preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, being Revision No. 27/99-2000 under Section 219 of Act of 1901, which was rejected by the order impugned, hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by U.P. Act XX of 1954, the words ‘step mother’ ceased to be heir and the word ‘mother’ remained there to be the heir of deceased male tenant who had not remarried. He placed reliance upon decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Jokhna vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raibareli and Others, 1979 ACJ 117.

6. According to him, Smt. Amna, who was the step mother of Taj Mohammad, was not entitled to succeed to the estate of deceased Taj Mohammad and it was the petitioner who is entitled under Section 171(b) to be the legal heir.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel while defending the order passed by the authorities could not dispute the legal proposition of law.

8. I have heard the respective counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. The short controversy is as to whether post amendment of the year 1954, whether step mother would be entitled to inherit and called as heir of a deceased male tenant after the words ‘step mother’ ceased to be part of the Act from 1954 onwards?.

10. The matter is no more res integra as the coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Jokhna (supra) while considering the somewhat similar controversy had held that once the step mother ceased to be an heir and only mother who has not remarried continued to be heir of deceased male tenant, and also after the insertion of new Clause 171(b), which was added in the year 1954, only provides for widow and widowed mother and widow of a predeceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not remarried.

11. From perusal of the record it is abundantly clear that case of Smt. Amna respondent No. 7 is that she remarried Mustkin after death of Nyazen from whom Taj Mohammad was born. T