The validity of a 'Will' must be established in a regular court, as mutation proceedings do not adjudicate rights or title over property.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey as also Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of present petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the respondent No.1-Upper Aayukt (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 965 of 1999-2000 (Km. Sudha Mishra v. Surendra Dutt & Others) instituted under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") as also has impeached the order dated 20.07.2000 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Collector, Mahmoodabad, District-Sitapur in Appeal No. 14 (Surednra Dutt & Others v. Km. Sudha) instituted under Section 210/211 of the Act of 1901.

4. In nutshell, present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order(s) passed in the mutation proceedings.

5. The claim of the petitioner before the revenue court of first instance namely Tehsildar was based upon the 'Will' dated 18.09.1990 executed by one Smt. Revati Devi W/o Late Gajodhar. Smt. Revati Devi was died on 23.09.1990. On other hand, the claim of the private respondents before the Tehsildar was based upon the succession alleging that they are the nephew(s) (Bhanja) of Late Gajodhar, husband of Smt. Revati Devi.

6. From the records, it appears that to prove the 'Will' the petitioner produced one attesting witness namely Ramesh Prasad Mishra before the Tehsildar, however, another attesting witness namely Panchu was not produced before the Tehsildar and to this effect no reason was provided before the authorities under the Act of 1901.

7. Further, from the side of the petitioner Gram Pradhan was also present at the time of execution of 'Will', however, he was also not produced before the Tehsildar.

8. As per recital of the impugned order dated 20.07.2000, the private respondents filed a suit for declaration of rights under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 in relation to the land in issue and that suit was dismissed and private respondents have failed to prove the fact that they are nephew(s) (Bhanja) of Late Gajodhar, husband of Smt. Revati Devi.

9. The Tehsildar, after considering factual aspect of the case as also the material available on record, allowed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 08.09.1999 and this order dated 08.09.1999 was challenged by Surendra Dutt and Others by means of Appeal No. 14 (Surednra Dutt & Others v. Km. Sudha) filed under Sections 210/211 of the Act of 1901 before the respondent No.2.

10. The respondent No.2, after considering the entire material available on record, held that neither the applicants nor the opposite party proved their respective claim and therefore rejected the appeal by directing the revenue official(s) to mutate the land in issue in the name of Gaon Sabha. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.07.2000 reads as under:-

11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Revision, registered as Revision No. 965 of 1999-2000 (Km. Sudha Mishra v. Surendra Dutt & Others) instituted under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 and this revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16.03.2009.

12. The respondent No.1 also declined to accept the claim of the petitioner after observing that the 'Will' is not proved beyond doubt.

13. It would be apt to indicate here that it is the duty of the propounder to prove the 'Will' as per law.

14. It is also settled proposition of law that revenue authorities are not competent to decide the issue pertaining to genuineness/validity of the 'Will' and also cannot adjudicate the issue/question/dispute of title/rights over the property in issue while dealing with the mutation case. Only regular court is competent to decide such type of issues. (vide: Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137; Suman Verma v. U