RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girish Chandra Yadav, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava appearing for the contesting respondents.

(2.) This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. On death of recorded tenure-holder Arjun Singh, contesting respondents moved an application under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act for mutation of their name on the basis of a registered 'Will', said to have been executed in their favour. Proceedings were contested by petitioner, who is son of recorded tenure holder. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 14.10.2003 rejected the application, against which an appeal was filed by contesting respondents. Assistant Collector, First Class, Meerut vide order dated 27.10.2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to decide proceedings afresh on merits after opportunity of fresh evidence to the parties. Petitioner challenged the same by filing revision. Additional Commissioner-III, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissed the same. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Tehsildar rejected the claim of contesting respondents on the ground that they failed to establish 'Will' by producing marginal witness and remand made by appellate court with direction to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence is illegal in as much as no remand can be made to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. It is further submitted that 'Will' was surrounded by suspicious circumstances which was dispelled as there was no reason in the Will to exclude the only son from inheriting the property.