Allahabad High Court

MOHAMMAD RASHIDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR

Holding

The Tehsildar’s order of 25‑June‑2026 is valid, being issued under the direction of the Additional Commissioner and does not constitute a fresh mutation; therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Mohammad Rashid, challenged the Board of Revenue’s order upholding a Tehsildar’s mutation order dated 25‑June‑2026, alleging that a fresh mutation application by respondent No. 6 on the basis of a 1983 will was impermissible and that the revision was wrongly dismissed. The respondent argued that no new application was filed and that the Tehsildar’s order merely implemented the Additional Commissioner’s direction of 31‑Mar‑2023, preserving the earlier orders of 21‑Jan‑2014 and 23‑Jul‑2014. The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the earlier orders had been affirmed by this Court and that the Tehsildar’s order did not constitute a fresh determination. Relying on Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the Court held that no fresh cause of action existed for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as misconceived and without merit.

Issues considered

Whether a fresh mutation application filed by respondent No. 6 on the basis of the 1983 Will is maintainable.
Whether the Tehsildar’s order dated 25‑June‑2026 is ultra vires and illegal.
Whether the dismissal of the revision at the admission stage by respondent No. 2 is valid in view of the stay order dated 29‑July‑2026.
Whether the petitioner can invoke Sections 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 to challenge the revenue orders.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

mutation
land revenue
revision
writ petition
U.P. Land Revenue Act
property dispute
court order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4253 of 2026

Mohammad Rashid
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Kumar Gaurav, Ram
Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinav Singh, Anirudh Pratap Singh,
C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri A.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the Board
of Revenue, dated 15.9.2026, upholding the order passed by the
Tehsildar, Tehsil Sagadi, District Azamgarh, dated 25.6.2026.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
mutation application filed by respondent no. 6, on the basis of Will dated
18.4.1983, was allowed by the order dated 21.1.2014, which was upheld
upto this Court. However, subsequently, a fresh application has been
moved by him, which has been entertained by the Tehsildar and fresh
mutation orders have been passed to be carried out in Khatauni of Fasli
Year 1426 to Fasli Year 1431. It is contended that the second mutation
application was not maintainable on the same grounds, therefore, the
order dated 25.6.2026, as upheld by the order dated 15.9.2026, is illegal
and is liable to be set aside. He has further contended that the respondent
no. 2 has manifestly erred in dismissing the revision at the admission
stage itself, even though, he was directed by this Court to consider the
stay application filed alongwith the revision, which is in teeth of the order
of this Court dated 29.7.2026.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6
WRIB No. 4253 of 2026
2

contended that no fresh application has been filed by the respondent no. 6
for mutating his name on the basis of Will dated 18.4.1983. The order of
Tehsildar, dated 21.1.2014 was affirmed in appeal filed by the
predecessor in interest of the petitioner. The order passed in appeal was
challenged in revision filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner,
which was dismissed and the writ petition challenging the aforesaid
orders was also disposed of without any interference in the order of
mutation passed in favour of respondent no. 6. However, against the order
dated 21.1.2014, another revision was filed by one Hari Prasad Prajapati,
directly before the Commissioner of the Division, which was decided by
the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Azamgarh Division,
Azamgarh, by the order dated 31.3.2023, in which the order dated
21.1.2014, as modified by the order dated 23.7.2014, was set aside to the
effect it related to plot no. 1167 and the matter was relegated back to be
decided afresh.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, the order impugned was passed by the Tehsildar on
25.6.2026. By the aforesaid order, no fresh mutation has been directed,
except for the fact that the earlier order dated 21.1.2014, referred to khata
numbers in which the mutation was effected whereas in the order under
challenge the plot numbers in the said khatas have been disclosed.

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

7. The perusal of the order dated 25.6.2026 starts with the reference of the
original application moved by the respondent no. 6 on which the order
dated 21.1.2014 was passed which was subsequently modified by the
order dated 23.7.2014. After narrating the entire history of the dispute
relating to mutation over the property held by late Zaki, the Tehsildar has
clearly proceeded to observe that the area in plot no. 1167, which was
earlier transferred by late Zaki in favour of Hari Prasad, stands to be
excluded under the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated
31.3.2023 and the remaining area 0.893 hectare shall continue to be
recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, probably for this reason in the
operative portion the Tehsildar proceeded to disclose all the plot numbers
WRIB No. 4253 of 2026
3

of the respective khatas specifying its area over which the name of
respondent no. 6 would continue in pursuance of the earlier order dated
21.1.2014 and 23.7.2014. Thus, in my opinion, no fresh determination on
a subsequent application moved by the respondent no. 6 has been made as
alleged in the present petition. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is misconceived and unsustainable.

8. Considering the objection of the petitioner in the revision before the
respondent no. 2 a categorical finding has been recorded in the order
dated 15.9.2026 that the order dated 25.6.2026 has been passed in
pursuance of the direction of the Additional Commissioner in its order
dated 31.3.2023. The Tehsildar in his order dated 25.6.2026 has
categorically observed that the earlier order dated 21.1.2014 and
23.7.2014 shall continue to be operative. In view of the fact that the
aforesaid earlier orders have already been upheld by this Court, no fresh
cause of action arises for the petitioner to intermeddle with the orders
having been passed by the revenue authorities in proceedings under
Section 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

9. The writ petition being misconceived is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

(Arun Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Ranjeet Sahu

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…