Evidence of a valid marriage must be credible and substantiated; mere assertions are insufficient to establish the remarriage under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Ishwar Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for private respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the validity and legality of the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue wherein they have dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and has upheld the validity of the orders passed by courts below, namely, orders dated 11.08.2000, 14.06.2011 and 17.10.2011.

3. The dispute which falls for consideration in the present case pertain to the succession of the property of one Govinde S/o Daili. Govinde had died in 1960 leaving behind his wife Smt. Hardei and after the death of Govinde name of Hardei was recorded in the revenue records on 17.08.1964.

4. After a very long period of time around 36 years, an application was moved by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 04.07.2000 U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act for mutating their names in place of Smt. Hardei on account of fact that Smt. Hardei has remarried 15 years prior and therefore as per provisions of Section 172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has ceased her right to succeed to the property of Govinde on account of her marriage with one Haripal and in the aforesaid circumstances a prayer was made to mutate the name of Pyare Lal and Shatrohan.

5. The Tehsildar, Tehsil – Sadar, Lucknow considering the fact that no objections were filed against the application U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act and perused the revenue records wherein he found that the disputed land was recorded in the name of Govinde in the revenue records pertaining to fasli 1400-1405 as well as in 1406-1411 after whose death his widow Hardei succeeded to the said property and also considered the evidence given by the Regional Lekhpal, Anil Kumar, according to which Hardei the widow of Govinde had remarried Haripal and accordingly came to the conclusion that in the aforesaid circumstances Hardei would be divested of her share succeed of the property of Govinde. While the applicant was the nephew of Govinde and that Govinde had died intestate the applicant was held to be duly entitled to succeed the property of Govinde and accordingly allowed the application and accordingly deleted the name of Hardei with the further direction that name of Praye Lal and Shatrohan were likely to be substituted in her place.

6. Subsequently, Hardei W/o of Govinde moved an application for recall on 19.09.2002 stating that she had succeeded to the property of Govinde who was her husband and further stated that she was never served notice during the proceeding and the order dated 11.08.2000 was ex-parte. She had further clearly stated in paragraph no. 8 of her application that after the death of Govinde she has never married and the application for mutation was given by the Pyare Lal and Shatrohan only to usurp the property of Hardei and accordingly sought recall of the order dated 11.08.2000.

7. It has been submitted that it is during pendency of the recall application that Hardei W/o Govinde died on 27.04.2005 and her application for recall was also rejected on 14.06.2011 by Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow. The Tehsidlar, Sadar, Lucknow duly recorded the fact of the death of the applicant Hardei. The Tehsildar, Sadar, Lucknow has duly considered the evidence of Shiv Narain S/o Moti Lal as well as statement of Lekhpal on the basis of which he has returned a finding that Hardei had married Haripal after death of previous husband.

8. A perusal of the statement of the Anil Kum