The court affirmed that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine substantive rights, allowing for alternative remedies under the U.P. Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been received by the office of learned Chief Standing counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta learned counsel has received notice on behalf of respondent no.3-Gaon Sabha.

2. Under challenge are the two orders dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) IInd Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in exercise of his powers under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the order of mutation passed by the Nayab Tehsildar Balrampur (West) dated 11.12.2019 has been upheld.

3. Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute-in-question related to the property initially recorded in the name of Sri Lautan. It is the case of the petitioners that Sri Lautan had executed a registered Will dated 22.04.1998 in favour of Sri Pyare (father of the present petitioners).

4. Simultaneously, another claim in respect of the property of Lautan was raised by his widow Kamla Devi who got her name mutated on the basis of succession on 25.09.2000. Soon thereafter, on 27.09.2005, she executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondent no.4-Tilakram.

5. Sri Tilakram instituted a mutation application claiming right in the property on the basis of sale deed executed by Kamla and in the aforesaid backdrop the petitioners were also claiming their rights on the basis of registered Will dated 22.04.1998 executed by Lautan in favour of Sri Pyare. Both the proceedings were carried on simultaneously and in the year, 2009 both the cases i.e. one application filed by Pyare and other filed by Tilakram, both were consolidated.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that Sri Pyare died on 14.01.2014, thereafter, an application was moved by the present petitioners for substitution which was allowed on 20.08.2018. It is also stated that after the order of substitution was passed, two dates were fixed, on which dates no substantial hearing could take place rather the dates were deferred and fixed for 14.09.2018. On the said date, a request for adjournment was made which was not acceded, as a result the opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence was closed and the matter was thereafter listed on 18.09.2018. On the next date i.e. 18.09.2018 the petitioners moved an application for recall of the order passed by which opportunity to lead evidence was closed, however, it is stated that instead of deciding the said application and affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the Nayab Tehsildar vide its order dated 11.12.2019 decided the mutation case on merits without deciding the application of the petitioners for recall and in this view of the matter the petitioners have been severely prejudiced as they could not contest their case on merits.

7. After the passing of the order by the Nayab Tehsildar on merits dated 11.12.2019, the petitioners moved an application for recall before the Nayab Tehsildar and simultaneously also preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioners had agitated before the Court of Commissioner that they have been severely prejudiced, inasmuch as they had pressed their application for recall of order rather the Nayab Tehsildar entered into merits rejected the application for recall and in the same breath rejected the mutation case of the petitioners while allowing the case of mutation of private respondent no.4-Tilakram.

9. In these circumstances, the revisional court ought to have taken a more reasonable view rather the revisional court also dismissed the revision holding that the same was not maintainable on account of fact that the petitioners are said to have filed an appeal and, moreover, an application for recall was also moved.

10. Sri Khan learned counsel for the petitioners has also vehemently urged that this fact which has been taken note of by the revisional court that the petitioners had filed an appeal was absolutely