JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent No. 4 are real brothers. A registered will deed was executed by petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad on 17.01.2002 in favour of petitioner in respect of his entire property situated in Village Sonvarsha, Bahuara and Araji Mafi Bal Govind Ram Upadhaya. Petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad died on 12.10.2009, accordingly petitioner applied for mutation of his name on the basis of registered will deed executed on 17.01.2002 by late Vijay Prasad. The cases were registered as Case Nos. 552, 553 and 554. Respondent No. 4 also applied for mutation of his name on the basis of a will deed executed on 28.01.2002 which were registered as Case Nos. 626, 627 and 628. During pendency of the mutation case, respondent No. 4 filed a civil suit No. 333 of 2010 challenging the validity of the will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No. 4 and petitioner have entered into a compromise on 02.01.2015 in Civil Suit No 333 of 2010. Accordingly, Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 was decreed in terms of compromise vide judgment dated 20.01.2015. A compromise was also entered into between both parties in aforementioned mutation cases 552 553 and 554 accordingly, an order was passed by respondent No. 3 in the mutation proceeding to record the name of petitioner in place of deceased tenure holder Vijay Prasad vide order dated 26.05.2016. After passing of order dated 26.05.2016, a recall application has been filed by respondent No. 4 before the respondent No. 3 and vide order dated 17.05.2018 respondent No. 3 ordered to expunge the name of petitioner and to record the name of petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 being natural heirs of deceased Vijay Prasad. Against the order dated 17.05.2018 petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 taking specific ground that civil suit in respect to the registered will deed in question has been decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 20.01.2015 but the appellate court without considering the same has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 31.12.2018 on the ground that will deed has not been proved in accordance with law. Petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar as well as order of the appellate court before Board of Revenue through revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue has entertained the revision filed by petitioner and granted an interim order in the pending revision but after hearing both parties Board of Revenue has dismissed the petitioner’s revision vide order dated 04.03.2020, hence this writ petition. 3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, has passed the following order dated 06.08.2020: “Shri R.K.R. Sharma, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent no. 2 after having obtained the no objection of Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, who had filed a caveat in this case. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his mutation application stands dismissed by the impugned order, although, the parties had entered into a compromise before the civil court, which is an admitted fact. The compromise admitted petitioner's claim. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 may file a counter affidavit within three weeks. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter for admission/final disposal.” 4. On 20.09.2022 this Court passed the following interim order dated 20.09.2022: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the civil court has decided the civil suit filed by contesting respondent in respect to will deed in question on the basis of compromise which has attained finality and in the subsequent suit filed by contesting respondent, no injunction is operating. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, no alienation shall be made by the parties in respect to property in dispute. List this petition on 10.10.2022.” 5. On 14.10.2022 interim order granted on 20.09.2022 was extended till further orders of this Court. 6. Respondent No. 4 has filed his counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has claimed the right on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002. He further submitted that civil suit filed by respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the petitioner’s registered will deed has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in the Civil Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2015 and the compromise application dated 02.01.2015 has been made part of the judgment and decree. He further submitted that civil suit filed by respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the petitioner’s registered will deed has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in the Civil Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2015 and the compromise application dated 02.01.2015 has been made part of the judgment and decree. He further submitted that in the compromise application signed by both the parties it is specifically mentioned that defendant of the Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 namely Deep Narayan will be recorded on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 and the plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no objection regarding the same. He further submitted that unless the compromise decree of the Civil Court is recalled/ set aside/ modified the mutation Court has no jurisdiction to alter the revenue entry in respect to the plot in dispute. He further submitted that impugned orders have been passed arbitrarily as such, the same are liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that will deed in question is a fictitious document. He further submitted that earlier suit No. 333 of 2010 filed by petitioner was an act of petitioner in order to obtain fraudulent compromise decree. He further submitted that compromise decree is vague decree and the same cannot be relied upon in any proceeding. He further submitted that mutation of the petitioner as well as contesting respondent No. 4 has been rightly ordered by the mutation court and petitioner have no right to challenge the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the impugned order has been passed in the summary proceedings as such writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Petitioner claims the right on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed by petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad, who died on 12.10.2009. 9. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Petitioner claims the right on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002 executed by petitioner’s father Vijay Prasad, who died on 12.10.2009. According to petitioner, compromise decree has been passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010, by which right has been given to petitioner to get his name recorded in the revenue record on the basis of registered will deed dated 17.01.2002, although respondent No. 4 is denying the validity of the decree of civil court passed in Suit No. 333 of 2010 as such, respondent No. 4 has filed subsequent Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration to the effect that plaintiff Deep Narayan Prasad be declared legal heir of ½ share and will deed dated 17.01.2002 be declared void and ineffective, it is also prayed in the suit that compromise decree dated 04.02.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 be also declared void and ineffective. The mutation court initially passed the order for recording the name of the petitioner only but subsequently passed the order to record the name of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 4 being natural heir of declared Vijay Prasad. 11. Since, the Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 4 for declaration and injunction has been decided on the basis of compromise entered into between Prem Chandra and Deep Narayan and the suit was decided on the basis of compromise application dated 02.01.2015. The averments made in the paragraph No. 4 of the compromise application dated 02.01.2015 is as under: ^^U;k;ky; flfoy tt lhfu;j fMohtu ckfy;k eqŒuŒ 333@10 & 96d ÁsepUæ cuke nhiukjk;.k 4- ,djkj o c;ku eq> oknh ;g gS fd Áfroknh dks lHkh vf/kdkj gkfly gS tks firk oknh dks gkfly FksA Áfroknh viuk uke dkxtkr ljdkjh esa eqrkfcd iathd`r olh;r fnukad 17-01-2002 ds vk/kkj ij ntZ djk ysaxsA blesa eq> oknh dks dksbZ mt ,o ,rjkt u gksxkA** 12. The oral statement of Prem Chand (plaintiff) recorded in Suit No. 333 of 2010 is as under: ^^U;k;ky; flfoy tt lhfu;j fMohtu ckfy;k eqŒuŒ 333@10 & 94d2 ÁsepUæ cuke nhiukjk;.k fnukad% 05-01-2015 lk{kh%& ÁsepUæ mez yxHkx 50 o"kZ] is'ks ls nqdkunkj@iq= LoŒ fot; Álkn lkŒ fpjath Nijk ijxuk }kck ftyk cfy;kA gyQukek c;ku fd;k x;k gS fd%& fot; Álkn ds nks yM+ds ÁsepUæ o nhiukjk;.k gSA ykyxat cktkj esa ge yksxksa dh nqdku gSA mls ÁsepUæ pykrs gSA firkth us tks olh;r fd;k Fkk og lgh gSA mlh olh;r ds ckor eSaus eqdnek fd;k FkkA olh;r esa esjs firkth }kjk fnukad 17-01-2002 dks jftLVMZ nhiukjk;.k ds i{k esa fy[kk x;k FkkA vc xkao ds Áfrf"Br O;fDr lqesj flag o lquhy flag dh xokgku ls lqyg gks x;k gSA lqygukes dk dkxt tks iapksa us fy[kk gS og esjs ikl gSA bl eqdnes esa eSaus lqygukek nkf[ky fd;k gS] mlds vuqlkj eqdnes dk QSlyk dj fn;k tk,A lqudj rlnhd fd;k x;k gSA ÁsepUæ Álkn c;ku esjs cksyus ij is'kdkj }kjk fy[kk x;k gSA gLrk{kj lhŒthŒ,lŒMhŒ 05-01-2015A** 13. The compromise application dated 02.01.2015 contains very specific Paragraph No. 4 to the effect that defendant Deep Narayan will get his name recorded on the basis of registered will dated 17.01.2002 in the revenue records and the plaintiff Prem Chandra will have no objection regarding the same. In the oral Statement of plaintiff Prem Chand dated 05.01.2015 he admitted the compromise between plaintiff and defendant accordingly civil suit was decided on the basis of compromise decree dated 02.01.2015. The operative portion of the compromise decree passed by civil Court is as follows: ^^U;k;ky; flfoy tt lhfu;j fMohtu ckfy;k eqŒuŒ 333@10 & 98d1@1 & 98d1@4 ÁsepUæ cuke nhiukjk;.k ÁsepUæ Álkn mez vankth 45 o"kZ iq= LoŒ fot; Álkn mQZ NksVdu Álkn] lkŒ fpjath Nijk i=ky; lw;ZHkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck ftyk ckfy;kA --------- oknh cuke nhiukjk;.k Álkn mez vankth 52 o"kZ iq= LoŒ fot; Álkn mQZ NksVdu Álkn] lkŒ fpjath Nijk i=ky; lw;ZHkkuiqj] ijxuk }kck ftyk cfy;kA --------- Áfroknh ----------------------------- vkns'k oknh dk okn i{kksa ds c;kukr ,oa dkxtkr fnukafdr 02-01-2015 esa of.kZr dFku ds vk/kkj ij fMØh fd;k tkrk gSA c;kukr ,oa dkxtkr fnukafdr 02-01-2015 fMØh dk Hkkx gksxkA mHk; i{k viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA fnukad% 20-01-2015 ¼,lŒ,uŒ flag½ flfoy tt ¼ofj"B oxZ½ ckfy;kA** 14. It is also relevant to mention that, respondent No. 4 Prem Chandra instituted Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration and injunction to the effect that will deed dated 17.01.2002 as well as the compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 be declared void and ineffective. It is also relevant to mention that, respondent No. 4 Prem Chandra instituted Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 for declaration and injunction to the effect that will deed dated 17.01.2002 as well as the compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 be declared void and ineffective. The subsequent Suit No. 1037 of 2020 is still pending for adjudication before the civil court between the parties, the copy of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 has been annexed by respondent No. 4 himself along with counter affidavit as Annexure CA-1, the relief clause of plaint will be relevant which is as follows: ^^U;k;ky; flfoy tt ¼twŒfMŒ½ iwohZ ckfy;k okn la[;k 1037@2020 ÁsepUæ mez r[kŒ 55 lky iq= LoŒ fot; Álkn mQZ NksVdu Álkn] xzke fpjath Nijk] iksLV lw;kZuiqj] ijxuk }kck] ftyk ckfy;kA oknh eksckbZy uEcj 8896725495 cuke nhiukjk;.k Álkn mez r[kŒ 62 lky LoŒ fot;k Álkn mQZ NksVdu Álkn] xzke fpjath Nijk] iksLV lw;kZuiqj ixjuk }kck] ftyk ckfy;kA ^^11- mijksDr oknh fuEufyf[kr vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS%& ¼v½ ;g fd fMØh ?kks"k.kkRed ogd oknh f[kykQ Áfroknh ikfjr fd;k tk;s fd oknh lEifr ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds vUr esa fn;k x;k gS dk ojklru odnj 1@2 dk fgLlsnkj gS rFkk ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd olh;rukek fnukad 07-01-2002 ,oa fnukad 17-01-2002 fu"iknd LoŒ fot; Álkn mQZ NksVdu ogd Áfroknh 'kwU; oks fu"ÁHkkoh gS rFkk ;g m|ksf"kr fd;k tkos fd lqygukek fMØh fnukad 04-02-2015 ikfjr U;k;ky; flfoy tt ¼lhŒMhŒ½ ckfy;k eqŒuŒ 333@2010 ÁsepUæ cuke nhiukjk;.k Álkn 'kwU; o fu"ÁHkkoh gS rFkk mDr fMØh dk vlj oknh ds jkbZV] VkbfVy o bUVjsLV ij ugha iM+rk gSA ¼c½ ;g fd otfj;s gqDe bErukbZ nokeh Áfroknh dks euk fd;k tkos fd mijksDr nksuksa olh;rukek fnukad 07-01-2002 o 17-01-2002 fu"iknd fot; Álkn mQZ NksVdu ogd Áfroknh ds vk/kkj ij tk;nkn ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds vUr esa fn;k x;k gS ds gd o fgLlk odnj 1@2 Hkkx ds vuqlkj oknh ds dCtk n[ky esa u rks fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls dksbZ eqtkfger djs u djk;s u mlds fdlh Hkkx dk foØh djs u fdlh Ádkj dk varj.k djs u gh dksbZ ,slk dk;Z djs ftlls mDr lEiw.kZ tk;nkn ij ge oknh ds rUgk dCtk n[ky esa dksbZ eqtkfger o O;o/kku u MkysA ¼l½ ;g fd [kpkZ eqdnek ge oknh dks Áfroknh ls fnykok fn;k tkosA ¼n½ ;g fd vykos [okg ctk; nknjlh ckyk ds ftl fdlh nhxj nknjlh ds eq'rgd ge oknh outnhd jk; vnkyr djkj ik;s tkos mldh Hkh fMØh ogd oknh fo:} Áfroknh lkfnj Qjek;h tkosA** 15. In view of the aforementioned fact that decree of civil court dated 20.01.2015 has not been recalled/set aside/modified by any Court as such, the name of the petitioner could not be expunged from the revenue records unless the decree of the civil court dated 20.01.2015 is recalled/set aside/modified. 16. The courts below in exercise of power under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act arbitrarily ordered vide order dated 17.05.2018 for recording the name of respondent No. 4 along with petitioner and expunged the name of the petitioner, who was recorded exclusively on the basis of compromise decree of Civil Court dated 20.01.2015 in place of their father Vijay Prasad. The order of Tehsildar dated 17.05.2018 has been maintained in appeal and revision arbitrarily, which is against the order passed by the civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010. 17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances the case, the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, order dated 31.12.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 Up-Ziladhikari, Bairiya, District-Ballia and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by respondent No. 3-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bairiya, District-Ballia are liable to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 18. The writ petition stands allowed. 19. Respondents are directed to record the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of compromise decree dated 20.01.2015 passed by civil court in Civil Suit No. 333 of 2010, which shall be subject to the final adjudication of subsequent Civil Suit No. 1037 of 2020 filed by respondent No. 4 in the civil court at Ballia. 20. No order as to costs.