Allahabad High Court
CHHOTE LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GARIMA PRASHAD
Holding
The petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must file a substantive mutation application before the revenue authorities.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhote Lal, sought a direction for the revenue authorities to enter his name in the land records after a sale deed executed in 1990 was declared null and void by an ex‑parte decree. He claimed he could not locate a mutation application filed in 2018 and argued that the court's earlier order required such an application. The State argued that a substantive mutation petition should have been filed by the petitioner, who is only one of several legal heirs, and that the relief sought could not be granted through a miscellaneous application. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the relief pertained to a disputed issue that must be addressed by filing a proper mutation application before the revenue authorities. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file the appropriate application before the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Tehsil and District Mainpuri.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking entry of a name in revenue records is maintainable when the relief is based on a miscellaneous application for mutation.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain a court direction for mutation without filing a substantive mutation petition before the revenue authorities.
- Whether the petitioner, as one legal heir, must file the mutation application on behalf of all co‑sharers.
Subjects
- mutation
- sale deed cancellation
- revenue records
- writ petition
- civil dispute
- ex‑parte decree
- substantive application
- land revenue law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28434 of 2026
Chhote Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mushir Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was unable to trace
any mutation application which was filed in the year 2018 and, as such,
the same could not be filed in compliance with the last order of this Court
dated 14.08.2026. It is submitted that when the alleged forged sale deed
was executed in the year 1990, thereafter, an application was moved by
the predecessors of the petitioner, however, the same was rejected on the
ground that the civil dispute insofar as cancellation of the sale deed was
pending before the Civil Court.
3. It is submitted that subsequent to the ex-parte judgment and decree
declaring the sale deed to be null and void, the petitioner has been making
various representations and has finally made a miscellaneous application
on 13.04.2026, annexed at Page-24 of the writ petition. It is submitted that
the respondent-revenue authorities be directed to enter the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records after cancelling the names of the persons
whose sale deed has been declared null and void.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that since there was a
dispute between the parties, a substantive application for mutation should
have been filed by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner being one of the
legal heirs, the petition should be filed on behalf of all the parties who
were the plaintiffs in the civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is not maintainable
insofar as the relief cannot be granted on a miscellaneous application filed
by the petitioner. Since the matter is a disputed issue, the petitioner will
have to take appropriate remedy by filing a substantive petition before the
revenue authorities for mutation of his name along with those of the other
co-sharers.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with liberty to the
WRIC No. 28434 of 2026
2
petitioner to move an appropriate application before the revenue
authorities. In the event the petitioner moves an application before
respondent No.4 i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil and District
Mainpuri, the same shall be decided in accordance with law,
expeditiously.
(Garima Prashad,J.)
September 8, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…