Allahabad High Court
KAMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
Every order in judicial proceedings, whether final or interim, must be incorporated in the revenue records.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking an order directing the respondents to incorporate a 2024 order into the revenue records. The petitioner relied on a 2015 judgment (Ramashish v. Additional Commissioner) which held that any order, whether final or interim, must be entered in the revenue records. The petitioner argued that because the mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act had not been finally decided, the interim order should not be incorporated. The Court examined the earlier precedent and emphasized that the purpose of incorporation is to reflect the correct position of the land irrespective of the finality of the decision. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was misconceived and dismissed it, disposing of the writ petition. The decision reaffirms the principle that all judicial orders affecting land must be recorded in revenue documents.
Issues considered
- Whether an interim order in a mutation proceeding must be incorporated in the revenue records under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Land Revenue Act — s. 34
Subjects
- land revenue
- mutation
- interim order
- revenue records
- writ petition
- U.P. Land Revenue Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10130 of 2026
Kamal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to direct the respondents to incorporate the amaldaramad of order
dated 18.03.2024 passed in Writ B No.1126 of 2024.
2. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon order dated 05.08.2015
passed in Writ C No.34862 of 2015 (Ramashish and another Vs.
Additional Commissioner, II and 2 others), which reads as follows :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.N. Mishra, who has filed caveat on behalf of
respondent no. 3.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue
Act was decided in his favour. Against this order the contesting respondents filed a restoration application,
which was allowed and the mutation order in favour of the petitioners was set aside.
Thereafter, it appears that an application was filed by the contesting respondents that the order allowing
the restoration application be incorporated in the revenue records. This has been ordered by the impugned
order. Hence this writ petition.
The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is that since the mutation case has
not been decided finally, no entry should be made in the revenue records.
Upon hearing, learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, in my considered opinion,
the writ petition is entirely misconceived.
Every order in judicial proceedings, be it a final order or an interim order should be duly incorporated
in the revenue records so as to depict the correct position, as regards the land in question.
Therefore, in view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed."
3. He relied upon last but one paragraph of the aforesaid order, which has
WRIC No. 10130 of 2026
2
already been highlighted by me.
4. In view of the same, present writ petition is disposed of finally in terms
of the observations made in the case of Ramashish (supra) by way of
highlighting.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
March 18, 2026
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…