(1.) LIST has been revised. I have heard Sri Sandeep Chaudhary holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent but the learned counsel for the said respondent is not present when the matter is taken up. This petition questions the legality of the order passed by the authorities below in mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on account of a dispute about succession to the holding of Smt. Umrai W/o Nand Kumar.
(2.) THE admitted pedigree between the parties has been unfolded in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, which is reproduced hereunder:-
(3.) REOTI Ram, the father of the petitioner, was not the real brother of Nand Kumar. The father of Nand Kumar is Gaya Deen and the father of Reoti Ram is Bhulan. Gaya Deen and Bhulan were brothers. It is, therefore, evident that Reoti Ram is not the son of the same father. Consequently, the claim of succession by the petitioner on the aforesaid ground under Section 171 cannot be accepted as against the married daughters, who are higher in the order of devolution for the purpose of succession under Section 171 of the 1950 Act as it stood when the succession opened. Consequently, it is the contesting respondents, who are the heirs under Section 171 of the Act. Coming to the issue of Will set up by the petitioner, needless to mention that the Will could not be proved before the authority. However, these proceedings of mutation are summary proceedings and, as such, it is still open to the petitioner to file a regular Suit in order to claim succession on the basis of a Will before the appropriate forum. Consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders in view of the observations made herein above, and hence the writ petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the claim of the petitioner to contest his claim before the regular Court on the basis of a Will as set up by him.