A.F.R.

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1100 of 2021

Petitioner :- Smt. Lalwati

Respondent :- Smt. Chhoti And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vikram,Dharm Vir Jaiswal

Counsel for Respondent :- Ayub Khan,C.S.C.

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard Shri Dharm Vir Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ayub

Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and perused the record.

2. Challenge in the writ petition is orders dated 11.06.2018, 20.02.2019 and

25.06.2021 passed by respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively. Present petition is

arising out of proceeding initiated under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation

and Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").

3. Factual matrix of the present writ petition is that Smt. Lalwati(petitioner) was

previously married with one Kishan Lal and out of their wedlock on son borned

namely Vipin. After death of Kishan Lal, his wife Smt. Lalwati had remarried

on 1.6.2002 with Sureshpal. Subsequently, on 27.12.2013 Vipin died unmarried.

After his death dispute arose with respect to his succession. There are two

claimants over the agricultural property of deceased Vipin; (1) Smt. Lalwati

(Mother of decesed, who remarried) (2) Smt. Chhoti (Grand-Mother). One

objection was filed by Smt. Lalvati (present petitioner), under section 9A(2) of

U.P.C.H. Act claiming her right and title being the remarried mother of Vipin.

4. Second objection was filed by Smt. Chhoti, being the grand-mother of Vipin.

All the three Consolidation Courts have discarded the claim of the petitioner,

Smt. Lalvati, on the ground that remarried mother has no claim over the

property of son who was born out of wedlock with the previous husband.

5. The question for consideration arises as to whether a Hindu widow, who

remarried after death of her husband, can inherit the agricultural property of her

son through first marriage under Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolidation and

Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity 'U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act'). Learned counsel for

the petitioner made emphasis on Section 171(2)(b) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act,

wherein phrase used as 'mother and father'. Section 171 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. &

L.R. Act reads as under :

“171. General order of succession-(1).......

(i)...........

(ii).......

(iii)......

(iv) the widow or widowed mother or father's widowed mother or the widow of

any predeceased male lineal descendant who would have been an heir, if alive,

shall inherit only if she has not remarried.

(2) the following relatives of the male bhumidhar or assami are heirs subject to

the provisions of sub-section (1), namely :-

(a) widow, unmarried daughter and the male lineal descendant per stirps;

Provided that the widow and the son of a predeceased son how low-so-ever per

stirps shall inherit the share which would have devovled upon the predeceased

son had he been alive;

(b) mother and father ;

(c)..........................

…..............................

…................................”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of petitioner's claim, has

interpreted the word 'mother' in wider sense which includes 'widowed mother',

who has remarried.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that word 'mother'

as used under Section 171(2)(b) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act excludes the widowed

mother who has remarried. In support of his case, learned counsel for the

contesting-respondent has cited the Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the Case of Parshanti Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and

others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1567.

8. Perused the record on board and considered the submissions advanced by

counsel for the parties.

9. Order of succession is enunciated under Section 171 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. &

L.R. Act and the modalities for the purposes of devolution of the property is

provided under Section 171 (1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Legislation has

recognized conditional right to the