Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and findings do not bind parties in subsequent civil suits regarding the same matter.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Supplementary filed by the learned counsel petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri M. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Satish Kumar learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.2 on caveat.

3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Baldirai, District Sultanpur which has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baldirai, District Sultanpur by means of order dated 17.05.2023 as well as the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division whereby the revisional court by means of order dated 02.08.2024 affirmed the two orders dated 24.09.2022 and 17.05.2023.

4. The dispute in question relates to the property left behind by Jagannath Giri who was the recorded owner of Khata No.116, 117, 118, 419 and 420 of village Sewara, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil Baldirai, District Sultanpur.

5. Mutation proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, who claimed rights in the property of Jagannath Giri on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Jagannath Giri dated 18.09.2014.

6. Upon the death of Jagannath Giri on 19.09.2014, the private respondent no.2 being the daughter of Jagannath Giri alongwith her mother Dharamraji had sought mutation on the basis of succession and their names came to be incorporated as per P.A.11 on 01.10.2014.

7. The petitioner moved an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and also sought a stay on the order dated 01.10.2014 by which name of Dharamraji and Smt. Kirtan was recorded. During pendency of the proceedings Dharamraji also expired and thus the estate of Jagannath Giri was being contested by the respondent no.2.

8. The Tehsildar by means of order dated 24.09.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and it also allowed the application of the respondent no.2 The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.05.2024 whereafter the revision was also dismissed on 02.08.2024.

9. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts have failed to consider that the Will as claimed by the petitioner was duly proved in accordance with law and the petitioner had examined Guru Nath who was the attesting witness of the Will who clearly indicated that the Will was duly executed and registered. Once the said Will was duly proved in accordance with law coupled with the fact that the private respondent had already instituted a suit before the civil court seeking cancellation of the Will, in such circumstances, the mutation order ought to have been passed in favour of the petitioner which would have been subject to the final decision regarding the Will in the civil suit which was instituted by the private respondent.

10. It is further submitted that Jagannath Giri had brought up the petitioner as his own son and in all the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner his father's name had been shown as Jagannath Giri. In such circumstances, it was the petitioner who had taken care of Jagannath Giri as his own father and it was but natural for him to have executed a Will in favour of the petitioner since there was no formal adoption, hence the Will was the only way for Jagannath Giri to have given expression to his intentions. As Jagannath Giri was suffering from a terminal disease, hence he had gone to the Sub Registrar' Office where the said Will was executed and registered which was duly proved as per the statement of the attesting witness Guru Nath, hence the findings recorded by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court are bad in the eyes of law.

11. It is also urged that since mutation proceedings are of summary nature, hence the statement of the attesting witness was sufficient to discharge the burden of the