Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 148 (UTT)

Ashwani Kumar v. Ajanta Sharma

2020-02-27

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioners in the present writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs: "a) issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure No.10), 19.01.2016 (Annexure No.11), 15.12.2018 (Annexure No.13) and dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure no. 15 to this writ petition). b) pass such order which this Hon'ble court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. c) award the cost of the petition." 2. The genesis of the proceedings resulting to passing of the impugned orders, under challenge in the writ petition, it emanates from the Will, which constitutes as to be the part of the present writ petition as Annexure No. 1, it is the Will dated 16th April 2008, which is said to have been executed by the testator of it late Mr. Vishnu Dutt, in favour of the beneficiaries mentioned therein, in relation to the property, which was described in the said Will; as to be lying in khata No. 72, bearing khasra Nos. 113, 114, 116 and 117, having a total area of 4.1179 hectares, which was a land lying in Shreni 1(kha) i.e. the bhumidhari land, along with the other superstructures which were existing on the said land which, as per the Will itself, it has described the property to be lying in village Chukti /Devaria, Phargana Rudrapur, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. By virtue of the said Will, which has been executed on 16th April 2008 by late Mr. Vishnu Dutt, the beneficiaries to whom the property was thus divested by the Will it bequeathed to the present petitioner No. 1 i.e. Ashwani Kumar Vaishnav, petitioner No. 2 i.e. Mr. Anup Kumar Vaishnav and the other two sons of late Mr. Vishnu Dutt i.e. Amitabh Kumar Saraswat, and Aditya Kumar Saraswat (i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition), who were held to be the successors and the widow of the testator i.e. Smt. Rameshwari Devi. Property thus shown in the Will was as under:- 4. Anup Kumar Vaishnav and the other two sons of late Mr. Vishnu Dutt i.e. Amitabh Kumar Saraswat, and Aditya Kumar Saraswat (i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the writ petition), who were held to be the successors and the widow of the testator i.e. Smt. Rameshwari Devi. Property thus shown in the Will was as under:- 4. As far as the aspect pertaining to devolvement of the right an issue as to what right would it create in favour of the beneficiaries of the testament, would not be an issue of much concern at this stage of the writ petition because of the tenacity and the nature of the argument, which has been sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the legal issue, which has been agitated by them before this Court during arguments. 5. The facts further reveal that, rather there happens to be yet another testament which is said to have been executed much later almost after 2 years by late Vishnu Dutt on 11th May 2010, which was registered before the sub Registrar on 11th May 2010 at 12.48 p.m., whereby the property which was shown to have been bequeathed, was the property as described therein, lying in village Devariya. Based on the said Will dated 11.05.2010, which is said to have been executed in favour of the persons shown therein i.e. Ashwani Kumar Vaishanav, Amitabh Saraswat, Aditya Saraswat, Smt. Ajanta Sharma, Anup Kumar Vaishnav, the grandson of the testator, who was divested with an equivalent share of the estate of the testator by the said Will. The property thus bequeathed by the said Will was described as under:- 6. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that on the basis of the Will dated 11th May 2010, it was Smt. Ajanta Sharma (respondent No.1), who was also one of the beneficiary of the registered testament dated 11th May 2010 and that she has initiated the mutation proceedings by invoking the provisions contained under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act of 1901, by filing the same before the Court of Naib Tehsildar on 2nd February 2011. On the initiation of the said mutation proceedings, the notices to the rival parties were issued on the proceedings and consequently on receipt of the notices the proceedings was contested on merits, because the petitioner who was the opposite party therein in the mutation proceedings had put in appearance and had filed his objection to the said proceedings of Case No. 30/352 of 2010-11, Smt. Ajanta Sharma Vs. Late Vishnu Dutt and others dated 2nd February 2011. Since the claim being inter se on the basis of a testament which was executed on 11th May 2010 by late Mr. Vishnu Dutt as such almost all the beneficiaries were the parties to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act of 1901. Particularly, the petitioners filed their detailed objection on 27.06.2011. 7. Be that as it may. What would be relevant to mention herein is that after the initiation of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act by Smt. Ajanta Sharma on 2nd February 2011 and after putting in appearance and filing the objection on 27.06.2011, the petitioner herein had chosen to initiate a Regular Civil Suit by way of Suit No. 43 of 2011, Ashwani Kumar Vs. Amitabh Kumar and others, by filing the same before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 19th May 2011, making a prayer for cancellation / declaration of the Will dated 11th May 2010, as to be bad in the eyes of law. As a consequence thereof, the subsequent initiation of proceedings of the said Civil Suit, the proceedings of the Case No. 30/352 of 2010-11, was temporarily kept in abeyance for the time being. 8. Later on, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, who had instituted the suit for declaration of the Will as to be bad, he himself has sought to get the Suit dismissed as withdrawn and consequently the Suit was withdrawn by him on 12th November 2014. As far as the aspects pertaining to the withdrawal of the Suit by the petitioners is concerned, that has attained finality as the said order was never sought to be recalled by the petitioner at any stage. Meaning thereby the plaintiff to the suit had submitted to propriety of Will dated 11.05.2010 by withdrawal of suit where challenge was given to it. 9. Meaning thereby the plaintiff to the suit had submitted to propriety of Will dated 11.05.2010 by withdrawal of suit where challenge was given to it. 9. As a result of the withdrawal of the Suit, the proceedings of Case No. 30 / 352 of 2010-11 filed under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, stood revived before the Court of Naib Tehsildar and the Court of Naib Tehsildar as would be apparent from the order dated 28th June 2014, had rendered the judgement whereby devolvement of the property on the basis of the entries made by the Revenue Inspector in Paka 11 on the basis of succession dated 3rd February 2011 was set aside and the parties were directed to be recorded. The following orders were passed to it:- 10. Its being aggrieved against the said order dated 28th June 2014, as rendered by the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Kichha District Udham Singh Nagar, the petitioners herein had preferred an Appeal by invoking the provisions contained under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act of 1901, being Revenue Appeal Number 52/53 of 2013-14, Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. Ajanta Sharma and others. The Appeal thus preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by the Court of Collector / District Magistrate by an order dated 30th October 2015. On a detailed reference and the considerations made by the learned Appellate Court with regards to the scrutiny of the judgement of the Naib Tehsildar dated 28th June 2014, its merits is not being addressed to, at this stage for the reason being that as a consequence of the Appellate Court's order while setting aside the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 28th June 2014, the matter was remitted back to the Court of Naib Tehsildar, which had resulted into the revival of the proceedings of Case Number 30 / 352 of 2010-11 and as a result thereto of the judgement dated 30th October 2015, the proceedings before the Court of Naib Tehsildar revived. 11. 11. On the revival of the proceedings before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, the learned Naib Tehsildar yet again de-novo conducted the proceedings and ultimately, by virtue of a judgement dated 19th January 2016, the mutation order dated 3rd February 2011 as rendered on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector that is Paka 11 and even the earlier order dated 28th June 2014, was set aside and a fresh order directing the mutation was made by it. The direction thus issued was as under:- 12. Before venturing further, it would be essential for this Court to deal with, and that it would be the bone of contention to be answered by this Court also as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the basis of which he has put a challenge to the impugned orders, which has been rendered after the remand, he submits that he was not provided with an opportunities to cross examine the witnesses, which according to him was one of the procedure contemplated, according to him in accordance with the provisions and was essentially required to be adhered to, as contained under the Land Record Manual and thus based on it, he contends that lack of providing of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses which would be essential and vital particularly when the Will becomes the foundation to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Primarily, when the respondent was called upon to answer the arguments of the petitioners, the respondent had made reference to the findings which has been recorded by the Court of Naib Tehsildar in its judgement dated 19th January 2016, wherein the Court of Naib Tehsildar has recorded the finding to the effect that on 24.09.2011, the petitioner herein was provided with an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, but despite providing various opportunities being provided the opportunity to cross examine was not availed by the petitioner, the last opportunity was provided to cross examine on 09.04.2013 and 15.04.2013, none appeared to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant. Consequently the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant was closed by an order dated 16.04.2013 fixing for final decision on 23.04.2013, so far it related to the petitioner and thereafter in various proceedings held from 13th April 2013 to 10th June 2014 the objector/petitioner has not adduced any evidence and consequently the Court proceeded to pass final adjudication order dated 19th January 2016. 13. When this argument was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent; that the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their opportunity to cross examine the witness in the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar was provided to the petitioners but it was not availed by the petitioners and in answer to it, the petitioners had made reference to an application which was filed by them before the Court of Naib Tehsildar itself for recalling the order dated 16th April 2013 i.e. an application dated 22nd December 2015 wherein the following prayer was made by the petitioner in his recall application:- 14. In continuity thereto and at this stage itself a very vital legal aspect which has been sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners it is as to what impact would the judgement of the Naib Tehsildar dated 28th June 2014 would have particularly when the petitioners' opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was closed so far it related to the petitioner by an order dated 16th April 2013. 15. In order to elucidate his augment, the learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted and placed reliance on the directions contained under the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and particularly the note clause of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual as contained in Part 1 which reads as under: "General Rules of Procedure Relating to Suits, Appeals and Other Proceedings in Revenue Courts Note. Rules for the conduct of business, procedure, processes appeals references and revisions contained in Part 1 of the Manual apply, so for as may be, also to non-judicial matters under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, as defined in Chapter XXXV of the Revenue Manual, Vide Para 912, Revenue Manual." 16. Rules for the conduct of business, procedure, processes appeals references and revisions contained in Part 1 of the Manual apply, so for as may be, also to non-judicial matters under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, as defined in Chapter XXXV of the Revenue Manual, Vide Para 912, Revenue Manual." 16. What he intended to persuade the Court is that the Revenue Courts, as defined under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, particularly as that contained under sub Section (8) of Section 4 would fall to be including within the ambit of the Revenue Courts, and hence the procedure as contemplated under the Revenue Court Manual, would be similarly governing the proceedings before the Courts, created under the Land Revenue Act and hence the procedure which is provided under the UP Revenue Court Manual should have been mandatorily followed even while deciding the summary proceedings of mutation under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, which has been initiated at the behest of the respondent/ applicant. (8) "Revenue Court" means all or any of tire following authorities (that is to say), the Board and all members thereof, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, [Additional Collectors]Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, and Assistant Record Officers and Tahsildars; 17. Prima facie, and for the reasons assigned hereunder, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted for the reason being that for the purposes of interpretation of the Note Clause, so as to make it applicable over the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, it has to be splitted into its interpretation in order to determine its scope of applicability on the proceedings contemplated before the Courts, as contained therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Para 59 of the Revenue Court Manual which reads as under:- "59. (1) The provisions of Rules 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 inclusive, Order XVIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings of a judicial nature under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901. (2) Language of the Court. (1) The provisions of Rules 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 inclusive, Order XVIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings of a judicial nature under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901. (2) Language of the Court. The language of the Court shall be Hindi written in the Devnagri Script in all judicial proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, provided that the use of the English language shall, subject to any order passed by the Board from time to time, be permitted in the case of any application, judgment or final order." 18. It provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure so far as contained under Order 18,Rule 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 would be governing all the proceedings before the Revenue Courts under United Provinces and Land Revenue Act of 1901, which is conducted on a Judicial Side. Under that pretext, he submits that once the provisions contained under Order 18 of the CPC has been made applicable by way of implications of para 59, he ought to have been provided an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses as adduced by the applicant to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. 19. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable by this Court for the following reasons:- UP Land Revenue Court Manual in accordance with the literal meaning of the term "Manual" , as defined under the Oxford Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary, which are quoted hereunder it means as:- (Oxford English Dictionary) Manual adj. 1 relating to, done, or worked with the hands. 2 using or working with the hands. n.1 a book giving instructions or information. 2 an organ keyboard played with the hands not the feet. 3 a vehicle with manual transmission. - DERIVATIVES manually adv. - ORIGIN ME : from OFr. Manuel, from (and later assimilated to) L. manualis, from manus 'hand'. (Black's Law Dictionary) Manual , adj. Used or performed by hand Manual for Courts-Martial. A manual that implements the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It was adopted in 1969 by presidential executive order. That means they are nothing but a compilation of an administrative instruction(s), which provides an information to the authorities or the Courts contained therein. (Black's Law Dictionary) Manual , adj. Used or performed by hand Manual for Courts-Martial. A manual that implements the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It was adopted in 1969 by presidential executive order. That means they are nothing but a compilation of an administrative instruction(s), which provides an information to the authorities or the Courts contained therein. Meaning thereby, it does not give the manual the status of being statutory in nature to make it enforceable in the proceedings which are being conducted by the Courts as defined under sub Section (8) of Section 4 of the Land Revenue Act, governing the proceedings which are instituted under it and which are summary in nature and only have its fiscal effect, on the payability of the Land Revenue, due against the land for which it is conducted. 20. Even according to the legal glossary, which deals with the legal mechanism, often uses in the judicial proceedings conducted by the different Courts of the country, therein the term 'manual', has been described and dealt with in the following manner:- The manual therewith means the manual of law or orders or direction issued from time to time to be complied. All these definitions of manual do not deal with the aspect that the manual as used for recalling the procedure until and unless it has a source of power under which it has been compiled or legislated. As per the opinion of this Court, it would not have a binding enforceable effect before the Court below and particularly, in the instant case when the proceedings under consideration are only summary in nature which is neither deciding a title or right of a party to the proceedings. 21. Having held that the proceedings or the parameters which were procedurally governing the proceedings provided under the Revenue Court Manual; since is not having a statutory force and it only having a guiding factor would not mandatorily create a right in favour of the petitioners to avail an opportunity of cross examination as of right invariably in all the proceedings which are regulated under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and which are summary in nature. 22. 22. The second answer to the question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though debated that in accordance with the note clause if that is scrutinized in precision it carves out an exception that the applicability of the Revenue Court Manual would be made applicable invariably to all the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act and the reasons assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that exception contained in the note clause by referring therein that it will be applicable to the Non Judicial; matters under the Land Revenue Act of 1901, he wants to argue and submits that this applicability of the Manual on the non judicial matters would mean, that apart from its applicability to all the proceedings as contemplated under Para 59 of the Revenue Court Manual, it would be automatically include the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and hence the said clause cannot be read as to be an exclusion on its applicability to the principal judicial proceedings contemplated under the Act. 23. With all due reverence, this Court is disagreeable with the arguments as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason being that the information or the instructions which has been compiled, by way of 'UP Revenue Court Manual', which otherwise does not show that it was deriving any source of legislating from which it has been statutorily created. The Court is of the view that where in the Note Clause of the manual, where its applicability has also been made applicable to the non judicial proceedings under the Act of 1901, it would automatically by itself exclude its applicability to the proceedings on the judicial side which are contemplated under the Land Revenue Act. The Court is of the view that where in the Note Clause of the manual, where its applicability has also been made applicable to the non judicial proceedings under the Act of 1901, it would automatically by itself exclude its applicability to the proceedings on the judicial side which are contemplated under the Land Revenue Act. The reason being that if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that it has been made applicable also to the judicial proceedings under the Act, and the clause contained therein in the 'Note' clause to the effect that it will apply to the non judicial proceedings was only clarificatory in nature, there is no logic behind the arguments, because as per my view had the manual been made applicable to the judicial proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, there was no necessity to the compilers of the Manual to make it exclusively applicable to the non judicial proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, because addition of its applicability specifically to the non judicial proceedings would amount to be an exclusion of the applicability of the manual on the judicial proceedings under the Land Revenue Act of 1901. Thus, the argument as extended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, I am not in agreement. 24. Even if for the time being, let us presume and which has been argued that the opportunity of cross examination ought to have been provided to the petitioners wherein a proceeding where a testament is being put to consideration as to be a foundation for recording of the name in the revenue records. Admittedly in the case at hand and as per the finding even, which has been recorded by the Court below, that in the proceedings as held upto 16th April 2017 and thereafter the petitioners were provided with several opportunities to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant. Once they themselves have not availed those opportunities to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant, and when their opportunities of cross examination was closed and not even that, even thereafter on account of their lack of diligence in participation of the proceedings held thereafter, their opportunities of cross examination was also closed. Once they themselves have not availed those opportunities to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant, and when their opportunities of cross examination was closed and not even that, even thereafter on account of their lack of diligence in participation of the proceedings held thereafter, their opportunities of cross examination was also closed. Meaning thereby, it cannot be said that he has not provided with an opportunity of cross examination but rather he has not availed the opportunity of cross examination himself, despite having been provided to him by the Court of Naib Tehsildar which he has not availed. Hence, in that view of the matter, the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant is not tenable hence turned down. 25. The necessity of the cross examination over a document which was the foundation of Section 34, is also not relevant in mutation proceedings from the viewpoint that since a testament is the basis it requires that the witnesses to the said document ought to have been cross examined by the Revenue Courts as testament could only be judicially tested in regular civil proceedings, where if at all required cross examination could be resorted too, but not in the summary mutation proceedings. 26. I am not agreeing with the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason being that there cannot be any bone of contention or debate, at the ends of any of the counsel for the parties to the writ, that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and it does not entail a detailed scrutinisation of evidence because any proceedings held thereunder apart from being summary, it has been made the subject matter of an adjudication to be made thereafter, by a regular proceedings to be invoked as contemplated under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act. Since any adjudication made by the Revenue Courts has been made subject to Section 40A of the Act, it would be deemed to be summary in nature and in summary proceedings detailed cross examinations in accordance with para 59 of the Revenue Court Manual on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner would not be attracted. 27. Since any adjudication made by the Revenue Courts has been made subject to Section 40A of the Act, it would be deemed to be summary in nature and in summary proceedings detailed cross examinations in accordance with para 59 of the Revenue Court Manual on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner would not be attracted. 27. Furthermore, there is another logic as to why the said concept of being deprived of an opportunity to have his case substantiated due to non providing of opportunity to cross examine, as against the Will on the basis of which proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, was initiated would be diluted and un-necessitated because after being made conscious of the proceedings which was initiated on 2nd February 2011 by Ajanta Sharma by filing an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, and after having put in appearance in the proceedings on 2nd April 2011, and after even filing of the objections on 27.06.2011 to contest the same on merits, and thereafter even choosing to institute the Suit No. 43 of 2011 by filing the same on 19th May 2011, all these steps itself means that the petitioners had chosen to get the documents that is the testament in question dated 11.05.2010 to be scrutinized by the regular competent Civil Court, which itself would be the competent forum, governed by the proceedings contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, but the petitioners themselves have withdrawn the said Suit, which was instituted by them against the testament. 28. The very fact that they have withdrawn the said Suit and that was dismissed as withdrawn on 12th November 2014, it will amount to that in a Suit where he has given a challenge to the veracity of a testament dated 11.05.2010, which is the basis of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, he himself has given off his rights to challenge the credentials of the document itself on the basis of which Section 34 proceedings have been initiated, hence, all the more, there was no necessity to cross examine the witness, to test the veracity of registered deed which is admitted by the petitioner. 29. 29. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasoning contending that the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar would be vitiated because he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant is not tenable and hence cannot be sustained for the purposes of adjudication of the present writ petition. 30. The petitioner being aggrieved against the judgement of the Naib Tehsildar as rendered on 28th June 2014 he has invoked the appellate proceedings under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act by filing an Appeal before the Court of Collector which was registered as being Revenue Appeal No. 52 of 2016, Ashwani Kumar Vs. Ajanta Sharma and others. The same too had been dismissed by a judgement dated 15th December 2018. 31. The admitted contention of the petitioners, while giving challenge to the judgement dated 9th January 2016 of the Naib Tehsildar allowing Section 34 Application is that they admitted that their application for recall dated 22.12.2015 for claim of their closure of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the applicant as passed on 16th April 2013, his Recall Application too at the time of final adjudication of the Application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, was considered and rejected. 32. The learned Appellate Court too, after considering the rival contentions by virtue of the Appellate Court's judgement had dismissed the Appeal and held that the order dated 19th January 2016, does not suffer from any vices to call for any interference in exercise of the powers under section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, of Appellate jurisdiction. The challenge to the Appellate Court's judgement has also been sought to be raised by the petitioner on the pretext that the grounds as taken by him in the Memorandum of Appeal, has not been taken into consideration by the appellate Court. If the Memorandum of Appeal, as preferred by the petitioners themselves on 23rd January 2016 itself is scrutinized there is no challenge given as such based on the propriety of the closure of his opportunity to cross examine the witnesses by an order dated 16th April 2013, nor there is any challenge, on the pretext that what would be the impact of rejection of their application filed for recalling the order directing to close their opportunity of cross examination. 33. 33. The learned Appellate Court had considered that in view of the Khatauni entries of village Devriya Phargana Rudrapur, pertaining to 1417 to 1442 fasli in relation to the property in dispute lying in khata No. 144, it had held that divesting of the property by the testator by the deed dated 11.05.2010 did not suffer from any vices and the Revenue Appeal too of the petitioners was dismissed against which the present petitioners had preferred a Revenue Revision under Section 219 of the Act and the Revision too had been dismissed by the Board of Revenue being Revenue Revision No. 9 of 2017-18, under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act by the impugned order dated 15th November 2019. 34. There are several other additional aspects which are to be considered particularly when the writ jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked where a challenge is given to the order passed in a summary proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, there had been a consistent precedent laid drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, as well as even by this Court too as Smt. Manorama Devi and others Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow,2004 97 RevDec 696, that any lis which has been decided on the culmination of the proceedings under Section 34 by the Revenue Courts under the Act of 1901; they are summary proceedings and as they are not deciding the title they cannot be made as a subject matter of the writ Courts for its judicious scrutiny. 35. 35. In fact, it cannot also be ruled out that there is clever device which has been crafted out by the petitioners while giving challenge to the impugned judgements, it was with an intention to override an effect of the withdrawal of their Suit by an order dated 12th November 2014, because that would have been an appropriate Forum available to them in a regular proceedings as contemplated under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act to get their right adjudicated, emanating from the Will, which was the basis of the proceedings under Section 34; but since they themselves had withdrawn those proceedings of the Civil Suit now they cannot be permitted to have a recourse of deciding their right flowing from the said Will by getting an adjudication of the summary proceedings by a Writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 36. Another question, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners had made addressed to this Court is from the viewpoint that as to what impact would it carry where the property which has been conveyed by the testator by virtue of the Registered Will dated 11th May 2010, it refers to village Devariya. However, another Will which was executed by the same testator earlier on 16th April 2008, particularly, reference may had to the inscriptions made on the Stamp Paper 388436884, it refers to village Chukti (Devariya), meaning thereby, the said testament of 11.05.2010 by making a reference of it as Chukti (Devariya) does not itself give the village a distinct revenue identity and separate revenue existence, as sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and if compositely the two Wills are read together and particularly the document on the basis of which they claim their right being divested that refers Chukti as to be Devariya, more or less as per the expression given therein by the testator, Chukti and Devaria more or less happens to be the same village and by an inadvertent error the reference of village Chukti is not made in the testament of 11th May 2010, that in itself, it will have no relevance or bearing as far as divesting of the rights in relation to the property is concerned. 37. 37. Besides this, the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act which has been culminated upto the proceedings under Section 219, it is a settled law that the writ jurisdiction is not available to the petitioners in view of the ratio propounded by the Courts of law as reported in 2004 (97) RD 696 (supra). 38. In view of the reasons already assigned above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.