Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow in Revision No. 2462 (LR)/2005-06, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirming an order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Revision No. 13/2004-05 carried by the fifth respondent against an appellate order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Sadar, Firozabad dated 14.12.2004 passed in Appeal No. 3/2004-05 preferred by the petitioner, allowing the said appeal and setting aside an order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Uttar, Firozabad, rejecting the petitioner’s restoration application made in Case No. 90T, seeking to set aside an order dated 30.09.1970 passed in the mutation case aforesaid in favour of the fifth respondent on ground that it is ex-parte. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are detailed hereinbelow.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the property in dispute comprises Old Khata No. 509, now New Gata Nos. 2023@1d] 2044@1d] 2048@1[k] 2454] 2489] 2490 ,oa 2491 admeasuring a total of 1.153 hectare, which was bhumidhari of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title. The petitioner claims that his predecessors-in-title were in cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land, and after them, the petitioner is in continuous possession. The land is situate in Mauza Narkhi Taluka, District Firozabad. The said land shall hereinafter be called “the land in dispute”. The writ petition was instituted by Rajveer Singh son of Ram Dayal, who died pendente lite. He was succeeded by three of his heirs, to wit, Sona Devi wife of the late Rajveer Singh, and Rahul Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, both sons of the late Rajveer Singh. They have been substituted as petitioners nos. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3. For the sake of convenience, they shall hereinafter be referred to as “the petitioner” in singular.

3. It is the petitioner’s further case that the land in dispute was originally the tenure of one Tikaram. He had three sons, to wit, Jhandu, Veela and Revati, and a daughter, Janki. Two of the sons of Tikaram, that is to say, Veela and Revati, died issueless. The third son, Jhandu, had two sons, Laturi and Ram Dayal. The petitioner is a son of Ram Dayal. He has propounded the following pedigree :

4. Tikaram’s daughter, Janki was married to Jhandu, apparently, a different person from Tikaram’s son Jhandu, and a resident of Isauli, District Etah. Janki had three sons, to wit, Neksey, Deshraj and Ram Swarup. The fifth respondent, Lal Singh, is a son of Neksey. The petitioner asserts that he i.e. Rajveer Singh son of Ram Dayal is the one and only grandson of Jhandu, son of Tikaram in the male line, and as such, Jhandu’s legal heir entitled to inherit the bhumidhari. It is asserted by the petitioner that there is neither a sale deed nor a will executed in favour of Lal Singh, respondent no. 5 by any bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Lal Singh’s name was wrongly mutated in the revenue records, and he, concealing true facts, obtained an order of mutation dated 30.09.1970, which is not sustainable in law. The order dated 30.09.1970, granting mutation in favour of Lal Singh by the Naib Tahsildar, is asserted to be ex-parte, in the sense that it was passed without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is castigated as an order made in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Dwelling further on facts, the petitioner says that respondent no. 5 filed for mutation after Veela son of Tikaram died, saying that Veela was issueless and had no son or daughter or brother