RAHULversusSTATE OF UP AND 8 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 27754 of 2026

Rahul
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of Up And 8 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                :   Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :   C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri
Kaushal Kishor Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of sale deed executed by
respondent no. 9 in the year 2008, the order for mutation was passed by
the mutation Court on 17.12.2008 in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8.
Against the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the mutation
Court, restoration application has been filed by the petitioner with an
inordinate delay. The mutation Court has allowed the restoration
application and restored the mutation case for fresh decision. Mutation
Court heard the matter afresh & maintained the order of mutation passed
in the year 2008. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been
dismissed vide orders dated 30.09.2022/07.03.2026. Hence, this petition
has been filed on behalf of petitioner for following reliefs:-

     i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing
     the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2
     (Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division,
     Saharanpur in Case No.1464/2022 (Computerized Case
     No.C202209000001464) "Rahul vs. Tejpal Singh and Others", under
     Section-210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, impugned order dated
     30.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Sub Divisional Officer,
     Budhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar) in Case No.3288/2002
     Computerized Case No.T202209550303288) Rahul Vs Tejpal Singh and
                                                             WRIC No. 27754 of 2026
                                    2


     Others", u/s-35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and impugned order
     dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Tehsildar (Judicial),
     Budhana, District-Muzaffar Nagar) in Case No.RST/712/2008-2009
     (Computerized Case No.T201809550300217) "Yogendra and Tejpal vs.
     Smt. Vimlesh", under Section-34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.


     (ii) Any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
     deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.


     (iii) Award cost of writ petition to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale deed executed by
the recorded owner was illegal, as such mutation order cannot be passed
by the mutation Court. He further submitted that mutation order has been
passed by Naib Tehsildar on the ground that the sale deed in question has
not been cancelled by any competent Court of law, as such there is no
illegality in the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the mutation Court. He
next submitted that mutation order has been illegally maintained in appeal
and revision, as such all the three orders should be set aside and the
mutation case filed on the basis of illegal sale deed should be rejected.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that, on the basis of sale deed dated
10.06.2008 the mutation Court has passed the order of mutation in the
year 2008, which has been again maintained vide subsequent order dated
13.06.2022. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal as well
as the revision filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed vide orders
dated 30.09.2022/07.03.2026.

6. It is material to mention that on the basis of sale deed executed by
respondent no. 9 (petitioner's mother), a mutation order dated 17.12.2008
was passed by the mutation Court, as such the filing of restoration
application after about 9 year to recall the mutation order dated
17.12.2008 is total abuse of the process of law, although mutation Court
has allowed the restoration application, but after hearing the parties again
                                                                                           WRIC No. 27754 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    maintained the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 recording finding that
                                    sale-deed was executed by petitioner's mother as guardian of petitioner
                                    and petitioner's father was witness of the sale-deed..

                                    7. It is settled principle of law that orders passed in summary proceeding
                                    for mutation are always subject to adjudication of dispute, if any, by
                                    regular Court, as such filing of recall/restoration application after 9 year
                                    before mutation Court as well as appeal/revision can not be entertained.

                                    8. There is no illegality or infirmity in the mutation order dated
                                    17.12.2008 as well as 13.06.2022.

                                    9. No interference is required against the mutation order passed in the
                                    summary proceeding.

                                    10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.




                                                                                      (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Neetu




Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad