MOHD RAFIQUE Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hari Shanker Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petition arises out of summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The name of the contesting respondents came to be mutated in the year 2006, which came to be objected by the petitioners by moving an application under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. contending that it is the petitioners, who are entitled to succeed to the holding of late deceased Mohammad who was the eldest brother of the grandfather of the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the contesting respondents who had got their name entered, are sons of the daughters of late Mohammad, and their entitlement cannot be accepted as the amendment under the provisions of succession under Section 171 of the U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in favour of a married daughter was introduced much later on, long after the death of Mr. Mohammad.