JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Krishna Datta Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Nawab of Rampur Estate has transferred his personal property for farming the Cooperative Farming Society in the name of The Bhai Sahab Cooperative Farming Society Ltd. Ardmangarh, Bilaspur, District-Rampur, which was registered on 20.01.1951 under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. The then District Magistrate, Rampur granted approval for the aforementioned transfer, accordingly, the name of the Society was recorded in the revenue records on 1.2.1951. The aforementioned cooperative society was divided in five cooperative societies, which were accordingly registered under the Act. One out of the five cooperative societies was Bagadiyan Garden Cooperative Farming Society Ltd. Bhogpur, Padampur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District-Rampur, which was further divided in three parts in the year 1984 namely Adarsh Samuhik Sahkari Krishi Smiti Ltd. Bagadiyan Samuhik Sahkari Krishi Samiti Ltd. and Bhogpur Samuhik Sahkari Krishi Samiti Ltd. The model bye laws of the U.P. Cooperative Society provides succession and nomination by the members of the cooperative society. The bye laws further provides that no transfer or nomination can be made unless the person concerned is made member of the society. However there is dispute about the certain fact between the parties. Hardhan Singh alleged to have executed a registered Will deed on 22.4.1993 in favour of Respondent No. 3/Shemsher Singh transferring his share in favour of Bhai Sahab Cooperative Society Ltd. and Bagadiyan Garden Cooperative Farming Society. On the basis of aforementioned Will deed dated 22.4.1993 claim was set up by Respondent No. 3/ Shamsher Singh before the Consolidation Authority and Deputy Director Consolidation while deciding the revision vide order dated 30th April, 2002 held that Will deed dated 22.4.1993 set up by Respondent No. 3/Shamsher Singh is doubtful. Respondent No. 3/ Shamsher Singh filed a writ petition no. 33906 of 2002 before this Court against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.3.2002, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2012. Respondent No. 3/ Shamsher Singh filed a writ petition no. 33906 of 2002 before this Court against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.3.2002, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2012. Against the order dated 18.4.2012, passed in writ petition No. 33906 of 2002, respondent No. 3/Shamsher Singh has filed a recall application along with the prayer of condonation of delay, which is stated to be pending before this Court. Respondent No. 3/Shamsher Singh has also initiated a proceeding on 30.11.2012 under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Tehsildar, on the basis of will deed dated 22.04.1993 which was registered as Case No. 262 of 2012-13 in respect to property situated in village-Ram Nagariya. The aforementioned mutation case was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 14.1.2013 directing to record the name of Respondent No3/Shamsher Singh in place of late Hardhan Singh in respect to plot No. 65 area 2.914 hectare situated in village Ram Nagariya, Tehasil Bilaspur, District Rampur. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 14.1.2013 one Keval Singh has filed revision No. 20 of 2012-13 and revison No. 1 of 2013-14 was filed by petitioner. The aforementioned revision No. 1 of 2013-14 filed by petitioner was allowed by Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide order dated 27.1.2014 setting aside the order of Tehsildar dated 14.1.2013 and mutation application filed Respondent No. 3/Shamsher Singh was rejected. The order passed in Revision No. 1 of 2013-14 was made applicable in respect to the connected Revision No. 20 of 2012-13 also. Respondent No. 3/Shamsher Singh has challenged the order of Additional Commissioner dated 27.1.2014 by way of revision number 1008 of 2013-14 before Board of Revenue. In respect to property situated in village-Bhogpur mutation case was registered as Case No. 379 of 2013-14 which was dismissed by Tehsildar vide order dated 22.07.2015 accordingly revision No. 1328 of 2017 was filed by respondent No. 3 before Commissioner which heard by Additional Commissioner and the same was allowed by order dated 06.06.2018 directing to record the name of respondent No. 3 on the basis of will deed dated 22.04.1993. The order dated 06.06.2018 was challenged by way of revision no. 1854 of 2018 before board of Revenue. Board of Revenue has consolidated the revision no. 1008 of 2013-14 and revision 1854 of 2018 and heard both the revision together. The order dated 06.06.2018 was challenged by way of revision no. 1854 of 2018 before board of Revenue. Board of Revenue has consolidated the revision no. 1008 of 2013-14 and revision 1854 of 2018 and heard both the revision together. Board of Revenue vide common order dated 17.12.2020 partly allowed the aforementioned revision. Board of Revenue in Revision No1008 of 2013-14 has set aside the order to Tehsildar dated 14.01.2013 and affirmed the order of Additional Commissioner dated 27.01.1014 with modification that will deed dated 22.04.1993 is valid and proved. Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1854 of 2018 has set aside the order of Additional Commissioner dated 06.06.2018 to the extant by which the mutation application was allowed and affirmed the order of Tehsildar dated 22.07.2015. Hence, Writ (B) No. 466 of 2021 has been filed by petitioner challenging the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by passed by Respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1008 of 2013-14 and Writ (B) No. 476 of 2021 has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by Respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1854 of 2018. Respondent No. 3/Shamsher also filed a writ petition before Lucknow Bench of this Court being Misc.Single No. 5271 of 2021 against the order of Board of Revenue dated 17.12.2020 passed in revision no. 1008 of 2013-14 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2021 directing the Shamsher Singh to approach the revenue court for declaration his right on the basis of will deed. 3. This Court, vide order dated 23.3.2021 entertained the Writ (B) No. 466 of 2021 & Writ (B) No. 476 of 2021, issued notice to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and stayed the finding recorded by Board of Revenue with regard to the validity of the Will deed in question. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 23.3.2021 passed by this Court Respondent No. 3 has filed his counter affidavit and petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Will deed in question as set up by Respondent No. 3 has been found doubtful by the Consolidation Court during consolidation proceeding as such the Court exercising summary jurisdiction under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot record finding that Will deed in question was rightly executed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Will deed in question as set up by Respondent No. 3 has been found doubtful by the Consolidation Court during consolidation proceeding as such the Court exercising summary jurisdiction under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot record finding that Will deed in question was rightly executed. He further submitted that Tehsildar has initially allowed the mutation application filed by Respondent No. 3 on the basis of Will deed in question but in revision the order was set aside by Additional Commissioner. He further submitted that Board of Revenue while exercising revisional jurisdiction has held that mutation application was rightly rejected by the Court of Additional Commissioner but the Will deed, which was executed in favour of Respondent No. 3 was valid execution. He submitted that Board of Revenue has exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that Will deed was rightly executed by Hardhan Singh in favour of Respondent No. 3/ Shamsher Singh. He further submitted that Court can not exercise summary jurisdiction after exercise of regular jurisdiction by Consolidation Court. He submitted that finding recorded by the Board of Revenue regarding the Will deed in question be set aside and rest of the order of Board of Revenue rejecting the mutation application of the Respondent No. 3 be affirmed. 6. On the other hand Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 submitted that Board of Revenue rightly exercise the jurisdiction under the impugned order holding that Will deed in question was rightly executed. He further submitted that so far as the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Consolidation Court is concerned, the recall application filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 against the dismissal of the Writ Petition has withdrawn is still pending before this Court. He further submitted that the subsequent will deed executed on 18-9-1994 by Hardhan Singh in favour of respondent No-3/Shamsher Singh in respect to the property situated in Nainital at that time under state of Uttar Pradesh, admitted the execution of will-deed dated 22.4.1993 as such will-deed executed by Hardhan Singh on 22.4.1993 can not be doubted in any manner as such there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 17.12.2020. He further submitted that the instant Writ Petition arises out of summary proceeding, as such the same is not maintainable. He further submitted that the instant Writ Petition arises out of summary proceeding, as such the same is not maintainable. He further submitted that execution of the Will deed in favour of Respondent No. 3 was in accordance with law in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case reported in Vishwanath and another vs. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others, 2004 (96) RD 678. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that in view of the order dated 23.2.2021 passed by Lucknow bench of this Court in Misc. Single No. 5271 of 2021 no interference is required in the matter. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that Tehsildar vide order dated 14.1.2013 allowed the mutation application of Respondent No. 3 on the basis of Will deed dated 22.4.1993 in Case No. 262 of 2013 but in another Case No. 379 of 2013-14 mutation application was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2015. There is also no dispute about the fact that order of Tehsildar dated 14.1.2013 & 22.7.2015 were set aside by Additional Commissioner in revision vide order dated 27.1.2014/6.6.2018 and rejected the mutation application of Respondent No. 3. There is also no dispute about the fact that Revision filed before the Board of Revenue have been partly allowed rejecting the mutation application of Respondent No. 3 but upholding the execution of Will deed dated 22.4.1993 as valid and proved. There is also no dispute about the fact that in the consolidation proceeding the will deed dated 22.4.1993 was found doubtful by the consolidation Court in the title proceeding. 9. It is very material to mention that in the title proceeding the Consolidation Court has found that will deed dated 22.04.1993 in respect to the property in dispute is doubtful as such the Court exercising summary jurisdiction under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot held that Will deed dated 22.4.1993 was rightly executed specially when mutation application filed on the basis of the same Will deed has been rejected in revision and order has been maintained by Lucknow Bench of this Court in upholding the order rejecting the mutation application of respondent No. 3. 10. 10. The exercise of jurisdiction by Board of Revenue while allowing the revision in part holding that will deed dated 22.04.1993 is valid and proved is wholly illegal as Board of Revenue cannot uphold the validity of the Will deed in summary proceeding although the claim of mutation on the same will deed has been rejected by the Board of Revenue in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. 11. Since, in respect to the property in dispute the same Will deed in question has not been accepted by the Court exercising regular jurisdiction, as such, the Court exercising summary jurisdiction subsequent to the exercise of regular jurisdiction cannot uphold the validity of a will deed in question rather respondent No. 3 can get his title declared in revenue proceeding under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or in consolidation proceeding if the same is still pending. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the part of the impugned order dated 17.12.2020 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1008 of 2013-14 as well as in Revision No. 1854 of 2013 upholding the validity of the Will deed dated 22.4.1993 is hereby set aside and rest of the impugned order by which the claim of mutation set up by Respondent No. 3 has been refused is hereby affirmed. 13. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are allowed in part to the aforementioned extent. 14. Needless to say that orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication of dispute if any by regular Court. 15. No order as to costs.