PAWAN KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is shocking to note that merely on the basis of an application, given on a prescribed proforma, name of the petitioners was mutated over the agricultural land on the basis of an alleged Will, left behind by Jagdish Kumar, without making the wife of Jagdish Kumar, who was his natural heir, a party or issuing notice to her.

(2.) When ever mutation is sought on the basis of Will, it is utmost essential that those persons, who could have inherited in case there had not been any Will, should be made parties and notices should be served upon them before passing any order. Mutation on the basis of application on standard proforma without any opposite party and personal notice to interested persons is permissible only in the case of uncontested inheritance / succession.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no such provision under the U.P. Land Revenue Act or Revenue Court Manual. Even if there is no such provision, it will have to be read under the relevant Act, Rules or Manual, because it is fundamental principle of procedural law and natural justice that no order should be passed against a person without hearing him. In case Will is not opposed by natural heirs, they will willingly give their consent before the officer concerned where the mutation proceedings are pending. However, in most of the cases Will is contested. In some of the States, unless probate is obtained no right may be claimed, on the basis of a Will. However, in Uttar Pradesh it is not essential to obtain probate before asserting or defending a claim on the basis of a Will. However, it is too much to record the name of some one in the revenue records merely on the basis of his assertion that deceased tenure holder had executed some Will in his favour without even issuing notice to those persons who are natural heirs of the deceased person and who may contest the Will.