ASHOK KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Punit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dtd. 11/3/2013, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow whereby they have allowed the reference in favour of the private respondent and held that respondent No. 3 would be entitled to succeed the property of Devi Dayal and their names be entered in the revenue records in place of Devi Dayal.

(3.) The facts in brief as stated by the petitioner are that one Ayodhya Prasad who was the recorded tenure holder had three sons namely Jai Dayal, Devi Dayal and Brahma Deen. Jai Dayal and Devi Dayal were real brothers while Brahma Deen was son of Ayodhya Prasad from his second wife. On the death of Devi Dayal, applications under Sec. 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 were preferred by Jai Dayal and also by Krishna Nanad, Maikulal, Ram-vilas and Ramswaroop son of Brahma Deen. Application of Jai Dayal was based on the ground of succession being real brother of Devi Dayal while on be-half of private respondents who are sons of Bharma Deen, it was stated that Devi Dayal has died inter-stat and they had looked after Devi Dayal, based on which Devi Dayal has executed regis-tered will in their favour on 15/10/1981 and it is on the basis of registered will they had claimed succession to the property of Devi Dayal.