Succession rights for female tenure holders are governed by Section 172 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, denying rights to husbands in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Sahai had three sons, namely, Baijnath, Bhagwat and Ghunuwa. The family tree of Sri Sahai is as under:

Bhagwat son of Sri Sahai had no male issue. Smt Daswi wife of Bhagwat inherited the share of Bhagwat. Smt Shikali and Smt. Ramkali inherited the share of Smt. Daswi being her daughter. Sri Jag Nandan claimed right as a husband of Smt. Ramkali. Smt. Shivkali alleged to execute a sale-deed in favour of respondent No. 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 and Jag Nandan alleged to execute a sale-deed in favour of petitioner. After death of Smt. Ramkali, an application dated 20.3.1978 for mutation was filed by Jag Nandan being her husband which was objected by respondent No. 2/Shivkali stating that her sister Ramkali has not expired rather she left the village, as such, she is entitled to be recorded being real sister of Ramkali. One objection was also filed at appellate stage on behalf of Deokali (widow of Jag Mohan) guardian of Raj Karan, Jai Karan, Maiyadeen (respondent No. 6, 7 & 8) stating that they stating that they are entitled to be recorded in place of Ramkali on the basis of succession. Naib Tahasildar vide order dated 16.8.1978 ordered to record the name of Jag Nandan son of Dharmpal in the place of Ramkali being her husband. The order of Naib Tahasildar dated 16.8.1978 was challenged in Appeal by Shivkali under Section-210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which was initially allowed on 27.9.1979 and case was remanded back before Tahasildar and again matter was decided by the Tehsildar. The order of Tehsildar was again challenged in appeal under under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act by respondent no. 2/Shivkali which was decided vide order dated 7.7.1980, directing that the name of respondent no. 2/Shivkali be recorded and Jag Nandan was directed to refund the money to Shiv Mohan (petitioner) regarding the sale of the disputed property made by him. Against the order dated 7.7.1980, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer a recall/review was rejected on 25.2.1981 accordingly a revision was filed under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner which was registered as Revision No. 3/15/17 of 1983-84 which was heard by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi who sent a reference before the Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.5.1985 for setting aside the order dated 7.7.1980 and sending the matter back before the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case in the light of the provisions contained under Section 172 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In pursuance of the reference sent by the Addl. Commissioner dated 12.5.1985, Board of Revenue has registered the case as Reference Case No. 92(L.R.) 1984-85 and vide order dated 26.5.1990, allowed the reference in part, setting aside the part of the order dated 7.7.1980 by which the S.D.O. has directed to Jag Nandan to refund the money to Shiv Mohan with respect to the plot in dispute and maintained the other part of the order by which the case of respondent no. 2/Shiv Kali was ordered to be considered in view of the provisions contained under Section 172 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act but with modification that there is no question of further reconsideration of the dispute by Tehsildar rather Shivkali is to be recorded in view of the provisions contained under Section 172 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the order dated 16.5.1990, passed by respondent no. 1/Board of Revenue.

3. This Court has entertained the matter on 10.2.1993 and stayed the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute in pursuance of the impugned orders of the revenue authorities. On issuance of notice, private respondents have put in appearance.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cas