Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Siya Ram & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 5372 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1721 (2 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5372 of 2007

Siya Ram and another            


                                    State of U. P. and others                                                      


Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard  Sri Ajay Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act.

Facts are that names of contesting respondents came to be mutated in place of deceased Jagwanti on the basis of 'Will' alleged to have been executed in their favour. Subsequently, petitioners moved an application to recall the order on the ground that it was passed exparte without any notice of opportunity of hearing to them. They also claimed mutation of their names on the basis of 'Will' in their favour. Vide order dated 10.6.2002, Tehsildar allowed the recall application and recalled the order dated 29.6.1995 passed in favour of contesting respondents. Thereafter, he considered the case of both parties based on respective 'Will' and finding that 'Will'  produced by contesting respondents was proved in accordance with law and that was the last 'Will' by which earlier 'Will' executed in favour of petitioners was cancelled, allowed the claim of contesting respondents and directed mutation of their names. Petitioners went up in appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.1.2005. Revision filed by them was also dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2006. Aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.

Both parties are claiming mutation of their names on the basis of 'Will' in their favour. All the three courts having concurrently found 'Will' produced by contesting respondents duly proved and accordingly directed mutation of name of contesting respondents.

In view of the concurrent findings recorded by all courts, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned order by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Even otherwise, writ petition challenging the mutation proceedings are normally not  to be entertained in as much as proceedings are summary in nature and always subject to final adjudication of title by competent court on regular side. Petitioners have remedy of getting their title adjudicated by filing a suit on regular side, if so advised.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.