Allahabad High Court

RAMESHWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The mutation of respondent No. 4's name stands and the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petition challenged the mutation of a half‑share of land originally belonging to Binda, which had been recorded in favour of respondent No. 5 (heir of Jageshwar) under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Earlier orders (1998) upheld respondent No. 5's title and were held to have attained finality. Respondent No. 5 subsequently sold her share to respondent No. 4, and the Tehsildar allowed mutation of respondent No. 4's name in 2018. The petitioner argued that his claim to the entire property, based on a 1993 PA Form 11, was ignored and that the mutation should be set aside. The Court examined the statutory provisions and the chain of revenue orders, concluding that the earlier order could not be interfered with and that the sale deed was a valid basis for mutation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with the petitioner directed to pursue a separate declaration suit for his alleged rights.

Issues considered

Whether the mutation of respondent No. 4's name based on the sale deed can be set aside despite earlier revenue orders.
Whether the petitioner can contest the mutation of the half‑share after the order upholding respondent No. 5's title attained finality.

Legislation cited

U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 — s. 33, 34, 35

Subjects

land mutation
succession
revenue law
sale deed
revision
finality of revenue orders
U.P. Land Revenue Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3813 of 2026

Rameshwar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Digvijay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajendra Pratap Singh

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Rajendra Singh holding brief of Sri Digvijay Singh for the petitioner,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3
and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the
respondent nos. 2 & 3, dated 16.6.2026 and 28.2.2018, respectively,
arising out of proceedings under Section 33/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in
dispute originally belong to one Binda, who had two sons, namely
Jageshwar and Rameshwar. Jageshwar predeceased Binda, and his widow
Budhiya went to her parental house, where she remarried. The name of
petitioner was recorded over the entire property through PA Form 11 on
19.11.1993.

4. On the application of Smt. Budhiya, the mother of respondent no. 5, a
case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was
registered before the Tehsildar. However, during pendency of the said
proceeding, Budhiya died and respondent no. 5 was brought on record as
her heir on the basis of a Will executed in her favour on 17.2.1994. In the
WRIB No. 3813 of 2026
2

said proceeding the name of respondent no. 5 was recorded over 1/2 share
in the land in dispute, being the heir of Jageshwar by the order of the
Tehsildar Khaga.

5. The appeal filed by petitioner was allowed by the order of the Deputy
District Magistrate, dated 16.5.1996. The said order was set aside and the
order of Tehsildar directing recording of the name of respondent no. 5
over 1/2 share was upheld by the order of the Additional Commissioner,
Administration, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated 6.11.1998.

6. Subsequently, the respondent no. 5 transferred her share in the land in
dispute to respondent no. 4. The application for mutation of name of
respondent no. 4, on the basis of sale deed, was allowed by the Tehsildar
Khaga, District Fatehpur on 28.2.2018. The said order was challenged by
the petitioner in revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad,
the respondent no. 2, which has been dismissed by the order dated
16.6.2026.

7. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was recorded after the death of his father over the entire
property, as his brother Jageshwar, had predeceased, leaving behind no
heir, as his widow had remarried.

8. As petitioner has continuously contested the succession to 1/2 share of
the land in dispute of late Binda, and has objected to the succession of
respondent no. 5, as the daughter of Jageshwar, his claim has not been
properly considered by the Tehsildar while passing the order dated
28.2.2018, which has been upheld by the respondent no. 2 by the order
dated 16.6.2026, on erroneous considerations.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4
& 5 has contended that the name of petitioner recorded through PA Form
11 was struck off on the case registered on the application of Budhiya, the
mother of respondent no. 5. As the order dated 6.11.1998, passed by the
Additional Commissioner, upholding the mutation of the name of
respondent no. 5 in the revenue records attained finality, the petitioner
had no right to contest the claim of respondent no. 4 for mutation on the
basis of sale deed executed by the recorded tenure holder i.e. respondent
WRIB No. 3813 of 2026
3

no. 5. It has been further contended that the respondent no. 2 & 3 have
recorded categorical findings that the order dated 6.11.1998 being
effective and not having been interfered by any court or authority, the
respondent no. 5 was the sole recorded tenure holder of the land in
dispute. As such, mutation claimed by the respondent no. 4 on the basis of
the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 5, could not be denied.

10. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

11. The order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 6.11.1998 clearly
upholding the finding of the Tehsildar that Budhiya was entitled for 1/2
share in the land held by Binda, was challenged by the petitioner in
Revision before the Board of Revenue, which was disposed of by
recording a categorical finding that the order dated 6.11.1998 is not liable
to be interfered with at this stage.

12. The matter was remanded to the Additional Commissioner to hear and
decide the restoration application of the revisionist afresh within 30 days.
The said restoration application admittedly was rejected.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the mutation of the name of
respondent no. 5 in the revenue records over 1/2 share of Binda attained
finality. The said fact as recorded in the orders under challenge could not
be disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.

14. In view of the aforesaid, the sale deed executed by respondent no. 5,
the recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute in favour of respondent
no. 4, could not have been ignored by the revenue authorities, while
deciding the claim of the respondent no. 4 to be recorded over the land in
dispute on the basis of said sale deed.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is warranted by this
Court with the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

16. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

17. The petitioner shall be at liberty to get his right declared over the
WRIB No. 3813 of 2026
4

share of his brother, who predeceased his father, by filing an appropriate
proceeding for declaration of his right.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 24, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…