JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri J. Nagar, the Administrator General in support of the application and Shri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the caveators/objectors. 2. This is an application filed by the Administrator General, U.P. for grant of Letters of Administration to administer the estate of Late Ram Deo Singh (died on 3.6.1995), son of Late Ahibaran Singh, resident of Village and Post Office- Singhawal, Pargana-Chanda, Tehsil-Badlapur, District-Jaunpur. Caveats have been filed by Shri Arun Kumar, Shri Ranjit Singh, Shri Harish Kumar and Shri Kamlesh Kumar. They have also filed their written statement. 3. Earlier Smt. Deo Raji Devi and others had filed an application for Letters of Administration of the estate of late Shri Ram Deo on the basis of the will dated 1.6.1995 registered on 3.6.1995. The application was contested by Shri Arun Kumar and others (the caveators in this case), who had set up a will dated 2.6.1995 executed by the deceased late Ram Deo in their favour. After framing issues and taking evidence the Court had by its judgment and order dated 25.11.2005, dismissed the T.S. No. 2 of 1999 filed by Smt. Deo Raji Devi and others on the ground that the deceased was seriously ill, hospitalized in a delirious condition and was not in a fit state of mind to execute either of the wills. By the same order the Administrator General was directed to take appropriate steps for administering the estate of the deceased. 4. Smt. Deo Raji Devi filed a Special Appeal No. 76 of 2006, which was connected to Special Appeal No. 108 of 2006 filed by Shri Arun Kumar and others. Both the special appeals were dismissed on 6.2.2006 with the following observations : “Parties, i.e. both the appellants and the cross appellants were at pains to submit before us that the present is a will case. The matter has to be decided like in a suit and on a whole reading of the evidence; it cannot be disposed of summarily. We disagree. It is not ordinarily to be disposed of summarily. The matter has to be decided like in a suit and on a whole reading of the evidence; it cannot be disposed of summarily. We disagree. It is not ordinarily to be disposed of summarily. However, if a case of this type comes before a Court where two wills of one or two days before person’s death is set up, the Court of appeal is not necessarily bound to spent further time of its, on having the appeal made ready and/or reading the whole evidence which cannot ever clear up the basic problem of the Testamentary Court harbouring reasonable and unclearable suspicion. The appeals are both dismissed." 5. This application filed by the Administrator General was directed to be advertised. The Administrator General has filed an affidavit of service annexing therewith copy of daily newspaper ‘Aaj’ published from Varanasi on 23.3.2006 advertising the petition for hearing. 6. Shri Namwar Singh appearing for Shri Arun Kumar and others the caveator/objector has raised objections namely (1) that the property is valued at less than Rs. 50,000/-, which does not permit the Administrator General to administer the properties under Section 9 of the Administrator General Act, 1963; and (2) that escheat agricultural properties vest in the co-sharers by survivorship under Section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (In short, the Act) and in their absence are to be managed by the Land Management Committee, under Section 194 of the Act. 7. In the caveat application filed in the earlier suit by the objectors, they had themselves admitted that the property is valued at Rs. 67,000/-. Further the Administrator General rightly pointed out that in the T.S. No. 2 of 1999 Smt. Deoraji had valued the properties at Rs. 10 lacs. In the recall application filed in T.S. No. 2 of 1999 filed by Shri Arun Kumar, an affidavit of Shri Ranjeet Singh was filed in which in para 2 the property was valued at Rs. 67,000/- including house, land, two plots and the deposits made by the deceased in the post office and bank. The objections regarding valuation as such cannot be sustained. 8. Section 175 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for passing of interest of a co-widow, or a co-tenure holder in the holding by survivorship. Section 175 of the Act is quoted as below : “175. The objections regarding valuation as such cannot be sustained. 8. Section 175 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for passing of interest of a co-widow, or a co-tenure holder in the holding by survivorship. Section 175 of the Act is quoted as below : “175. Passing of interest by survivorship.—In the case of a co-widow, or a co-tenure holder, who dies leaving no heir entitled to succeed under the provisions of this Act, the interest in such holding shall pass by survivorship.” 9. The ‘tenant’ is defined under Section 3 (23) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, means the person by whom rent is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable and, except when the contrary intention appears, includes a sub-tenant, but does not include a mortgagee of proprietary or under proprietary rights, a grove-holder, a rent-free grantee, a grantee at a favourable rate of rent or, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, an under-proprietor, permanent lessee or a thekadar. 10. A co-tenant is a person, who holds the tenure in holding with the other holder of the same parcel or parcels of land. Under Section 3 (7) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 “holding” means a parcel or parcels of land held under one lease, engagement or grant, or in the absence of such lease, engagement or grant under one tenure, and in the case of a thekadar includes the theka area. A tenure is not defined either under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 or under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for which reference is to be made under Section 3 (26) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It, however, refers to tenancy, which is so defined under Section 3 (23) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. 11. In Dharam Das v. Bishun Narain, AIR 1973 All 376 this Court did not agree with the contention that the surviving co-tenant, who acquires rights under Section 175 of the Act holds the property under a trust, for the heirless deceased tenure holder, for the purposes of paying the loans to the extent to which the property is held by survivorship. 12. In Asha Ram v. Dy. 12. In Asha Ram v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Banda and others, 1997 (2) A.W.C. 1297 the Court made a passing reference in para 13 that the tenancy rights under Section 175 of the Act shall devolve on co-tenants if such co-tenant dies leaving no heir entitled to succeed under the provisions of the Act. 13. The proposition raised by Shri Namwar Singh is that on death of a co-tenure holder having no relationship with the other co-tenure holder, dying heirless, the rights would devolve upon other by survivorship. This kind of creation of tenancy, is not known under the U.P. Tenancy Act or U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Definitions of various kinds of tenancies under Section 21 do not include any such co-tenure holder to succeed to the rights of the heirless deceased tenure holder. 14. The words ‘co-widow’ preceding a ‘co-tenure holder’ in Section 175 of the Act refers to some relationship with the co-tenure holder, who dies leaving no heir, either by as a members of Hindu undivided family or by succession under the personal laws or under the Act. There is no other mode of acquiring tenancy rights nor any such mode can be conceded in respect of estates, which are vested in the State. 15. In the present case the caveators have alleged that they were recorded as co-tenure holders in the Khata on the basis of the will dated 21.7.1991, executed by late Ram Naresh Singh for which they do not require any Letters of Administration or succession certificate in the State of U.P. The submissions in my opinion has no force, on the ground that caveators/objectors were not related to late Ram Naresh Singh in any manner and succeed to his estate by will. Further I find nothing on record to show that late Ram Deo Singh was co-tenure holder with late Ram Naresh Singh. In the will of Ram Naresh Singh he has clearly stated that his real brother Ram Deo Singh is living separately from him and doing his business. In the Khata of Ram Deo, the name of Ram Naresh is not recorded. The order of the Tehsildar dated 12.7.1995 by which the caveators’ names came to be mutated in the Khata in which Ram Deo is recorded as a tenure holder, on the basis of will of Ram Naresh, was made only after Ram Deo had died. In the Khata of Ram Deo, the name of Ram Naresh is not recorded. The order of the Tehsildar dated 12.7.1995 by which the caveators’ names came to be mutated in the Khata in which Ram Deo is recorded as a tenure holder, on the basis of will of Ram Naresh, was made only after Ram Deo had died. The caveators/objectors as such in any case did not became co-tenure holder with Ram Deo for claiming rights of survivorship under Section 175 of the Act. 16. With regard to the management of land by Land Management Committee is concerned, in the earlier suits filed by the caveator/objectors the properties were held to be escheat properties. With the abolition of Zamindari in U.P. by the Act of 1950 the State Government declared by notification under Section 4 that all the estates covered by the Act in U.P. shall vest in the State from the specified date (date of vesting) on which all such estates stood transferred and vested in the State, except as provided under the Act, free from all encumbrances. The Act, thereafter, provided for various categories of tenants and thekedars of the land, to continue to hold land of terms and conditions given under the Act. Section 117 of the Act provides for vesting of certain land in Gaon Sabha and other local authorities by a declaration to be made by the State Government. Section 189 of the Act provides for extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, (a) when he dies having no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (aa) when the holding has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of the Act; (b) when the holding has been acquired; (c) when he has been deprived of possession and the right to recover possession is barred by limitation. 17. Section 194 provides that where the interest in the land held by bhumidhar is extinguished under clause (a) or clause (aa) of Section 189 or clause (a), (aa), (b), (c) of Section 189, the Land Management Committee shall be entitled to take possession of the land comprised in a holding or part thereof. 17. Section 194 provides that where the interest in the land held by bhumidhar is extinguished under clause (a) or clause (aa) of Section 189 or clause (a), (aa), (b), (c) of Section 189, the Land Management Committee shall be entitled to take possession of the land comprised in a holding or part thereof. Section 195 provides that in such case the Land Management Committee with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division shall have the right to admit any person as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights. The taking of possession and allotment under Section 195 and 194 it is only for the purpose of management of the land. 18. The administration of the escheat properties by the Administrator General is provided under the Administrator General Act, 1963, which is a special Act. The provisions of these two Acts, however, have to be read harmoniously to give effective administration of the escheat properties for the State and to be ultimately handed over to the State Government. The Administrator General does not hold the escheat land for himself, but for and on behalf of the State Government. The agricultural holdings in U.P. after their vesting in the State or even after vesting in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the Act, continue to be vested in the State Government. These are held by the tenants, who are classified as bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights under certain conditions under the Act. The management has to be looked after by someone, and for this purpose Section 194 entitles the Land Management Committee to take possession of the land comprised in a holding or a part thereof where the bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights has died without leaving any heir. The administration of the land with the Administrator General is also for the same purpose. 19. I do not find any inconsistency in the provisions of the Administrator General Act, 1925 and the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 in this regard. Whenever a bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights died intestate, leaving no heir, the Land Management Committee may take possession and allot it subject to previous approval of the Asstt. Collector in-charge. The Administrator General may apply for the administration of the land where the deceased has also left behind other non-agricultural properties, and in such case the previous approval of the Asstt. Collector in-charge. The Administrator General may apply for the administration of the land where the deceased has also left behind other non-agricultural properties, and in such case the previous approval of the Asstt. Collector in-charge is substituted by the previous approval of the Administrator General, who also administers the properties for the State. 20. Shri Namwar Singh has raised objections with regard to details of the properties, which are claimed to be the properties of late Ram Deo Singh. He submits that Ram Naresh and Ram Deo were brothers having equal share in agricultural properties and that two of the caveators namely Arun Kumar son of Sri Ram Sewak Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Shri Baij Nath Singh were given the properties by Shri Ram Naresh by will dated 21.7.1991, for which he need not have applied for Letters of Administration as Section 217 of Indian Succession Act is not applicable in U.P. He pointed out that though the evidence was led to prove the will dated 21.7.1991, the Court while deciding the testamentary suits incorrectly held that no evidence was led and did not record its opinion over the proof of will executed by Shri Ram Naresh. The appellate Court made it clear that the testamentary Court has not pronounced over the will of Ram Naresh. Shri Namwar Singh submits that in para 5 of the application of the Administrator General he has included the property of Ram Naresh in the properties of Ram Deo and, thus, description of properties in the affidavit of valuation is incorrect. 21. The Court is not adjudicating over the validity the will of late Shri Ram Naresh. The Division Bench upholding the judgment dismissing both the suits also made it clear that it has not pronounced over the will of late Shri Ram Naresh. The Letters of Administration, therefore, shall be confined to the properties of late Shri Ram Deo alone. 22. The testamentary Court is not called upon to adjudicate upon the partition of the properties of Late Shri Ram Deo and Late Shri Ram Naresh. Such a relief can be obtained by the caveators/ respondents only through the Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. The deceased has left behind the properties, which include agricultural land, house and trees. The Administrator General has valued this property at Rs. 10 lacs as it was valued by Deo Raji Devi and others. Such a relief can be obtained by the caveators/ respondents only through the Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. The deceased has left behind the properties, which include agricultural land, house and trees. The Administrator General has valued this property at Rs. 10 lacs as it was valued by Deo Raji Devi and others. The estate as such is not confined, only to the agricultural property, and that I do not find any justification to separate the agricultural properties from the estate of the deceased, and to allow the management by both the Land Management Committee and the Administrator General. 24. For the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in the objections raised by the caveators/objectors. The Testamentary Suit is, consequently, decreed. The Administrator General shall be granted Letters of Administration for administering the estate of late Shri Ram Deo subject to the provisions of the Administrator General Act, 1963, and the Rules made thereunder as well as Rules of the Court. Order Accordingly. ———