Whether mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which are summary and for fiscal purposes, can be based on a disputed Will without evidence of title.

1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh holding brief of Sri Hriday Raj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders of the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4, dated 16.07.2025; 18.04.2019 and 22.10.2018, respectively, passed in proceeding arising out of Section 34 /35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 .

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of the recorded tenure holder Ashok, the petitioner being his sister's son, was recorded in the revenue records, relating to the land in dispute, on the basis of Form PA-11. The respondent no. 5 filed an application for getting her name mutated over the land in dispute on the basis of a registered Will, dated 06.04.2016, executed by deceased Ashok in her favour.

4. The aforesaid application was allowed by the order of the Tehsildar, dated 22.10.2018. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was allowed by the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, Meerut, dated 25.01.2019. The Revision filed by the respondent no. 5, challenging the order of the Deputy District Magistrate, was allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dated 18.04.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner filed a Revision before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court-I, Meerut, the respondent no. 2, which has been dismissed by the order dated 16.07.2025.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Will produced by the respondent no. 5 was disputed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar, as such, no mutation on the said basis could have been directed as it required taking of evidence by the Tehsildar to prove the said will, which was beyond its scope in summary proceeding under Section 34 of the Revenue Code.

7. It is further contended that the Deputy District Magistrate was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, as the Will was executed in suspicious circumstances. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 have manifestly erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy District Magistrate without setting aside the findings recorded by the Deputy District Magistrate in respect of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.

8. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the present proceeding arises out of proceedings under the mutation which are summary in nature, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He has further contended that the proceedings of mutation are on the basis of possession which are for fiscal uses only and does not determine rights of the parties. As the finding of possession recorded by the Tehsildar has not been set aside by the Deputy District Magistrate in appeal, no interference is warranted in the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and others, Misc. Single No. - 5147 of 2015, dated 25.06.2021.

9. The matter requires consideration.

10. Issue notice to respondent no. 5. Steps be taken by registered/speed post, within a week.

11. All the respondents are granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

12. List the