Court No. - 5
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4824 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ram Dayal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Revenue Sectt.Lukcnow &
Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surya Kumar Tripathi,Vinay
Kumar
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4 has been accepted by
learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties no.5 and 6.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed in
the proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act as well as the
appellate order and the revisional order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of
unregistered will deed he had filed an application under Section 34 of
Land Revenue Act for getting his name mutated. The said will was
proved by the witnesses, however, the application for mutation has
been rejected. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner
have also been rejected without properly considering the submissions
made by the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and gone through the records.
The proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act are summary
proceedings. In case the petitioner wants to claim his right over the
land in question on the basis of unregistered will deed, he may get his
rights first settled by filing a suit before the appropriate Court where the
evidence can be better appreciated. Petitioner would have liberty
thereafter to get the mutation case filed under Section 34 of Land
Revenue Act.
With these observations, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2015
Ram.