Allahabad High Court

MOHAMMAD TAHIRversusADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BASTI DIVISION AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The Court held that there is no jurisdiction to interfere with the mutation orders and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner challenged a mutation order passed by a Naib Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which recorded the name of a private respondent based on a registered will deed dated 21‑02‑2009. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 35(2) and subsequent revision under Section 210 were dismissed, leading to a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari and mandamus. The petitioner argued that the will deed was not proved and that a pending civil suit for its cancellation barred the mutation proceeding. The respondent contended that the will deed was duly proved under the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act and that the civil suit remedy should be pursued. The Court held that the mutation order, affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, could not be interfered with in a summary proceeding and that the petitioner must seek relief in the civil court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with a note that the mutation order remains subject to adjudication by the civil court.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere via a writ under Article 226 with a mutation order passed in a summary proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Whether the registered will deed was proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act for purposes of mutation.
Whether a pending civil suit for cancellation of the will deed bars the filing of a writ petition challenging the mutation order.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Succession Act, 1925
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210, 34, 35(2)

Subjects

mutation
succession
will deed
writ petition
Article 226
U.P. Revenue Code
civil suit
summary proceeding

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30373 of 2026

Mohammad Tahir
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Additional Commissioner (Administration) Basti
Division And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayub Khan, Shaikh Mohd Mujib Ur
Rahman
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Balram Mishra, C.S.C., Shiv Dayal
Tiwari

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

1. Heard Mr. Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv
Dayal Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Jitendra
Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State
respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation proceeding under Section 34 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated at the instance of private
respondent no.4 on the basis of registered will deed dated 21.2.2009. Naib
Tehsildar vide order dated 11.12.2024 decided the aforementioned
mutation case directing to record the name of private respondent no.4 on
the basis of registered will deed dated 21.2.2009 in place of deceased
father Shah Ali. Against the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 11.12.2024,
appeal under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by
petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer with the prayer that mutation
order should be set aside and the name of both the sons of deceased
should be recorded over the plot in question. Sub Divisional Officer vide
order dated 25.9.2025 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Against the
appellate order, revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
was filed on behalf of the petitioner which has been dismissed by
Additional Commissioner vide order dated 29.5.2026 hence this writ
petition for the following relief:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
WRIC No. 30373 of 2026
2

order dated 29.05.2026 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated
25.09.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 11.12.2024
passed by respondent no.3, in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature or mandamus to
direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the
petitioners exist over the land in dispute during the pendency of the writ
petition."

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner as well as
private respondent no.4 are entitled to be recorded after death of their
father- Shah Ali on the basis of succession. He submitted that will deed
alleged to be executed in favour of private respondent no.4 has not been
proved in accordance with law, as such, the private respondent no.4
cannot be recorded on the basis of will deed in question. He submitted
that appeal as well as revision filed on behalf of the petitioner have been
dismissed in illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that on the basis
of pendency of civil suit filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation
of will deed in question, the mutation proceeding cannot be decided in
arbitrary manner. He submitted that writ petition should be allowed on the
ground of set up in the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that
Tehsildar has recorded proper finding for recording the name of private
respondent no.4 on the basis of registered will deed in question. He
further submitted that will deed in question has been proved according to
the provisions contained under the Indian Evidence Act and Indian
Succession Act, as such, no interference is required against the order of
mutation. He submitted that even civil suit for cancellation of will deed
filed by petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration
application filed against the dismissal of suit is pending, as such,
petitioner should pursue the remedy before the Civil Court rather before
the mutation Court for unlimited period. He submitted that no interference
is required against the impugned orders and writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the
WRIC No. 30373 of 2026
3

parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that order for mutation was passed by
Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
on the basis of registered will deed in favour of private respondent no.4.
There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal and revision filed by
petitioner have been dismissed by the appellate Court/ revisional Court.

7. It is material to mention that Naib Tehsildar has passed the order of
mutation on the basis of registered will deed executed in favour of private
respondent no.4 considering the evidence on record recording finding that
will deed has been proved in accordance with law.

8. In view of the finding recorded by Naib Tehsildar, which has been
confirmed in appeal as well as revision, there is no scope for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere against the
mutation orders passed in the summary proceeding.

9. It is also material to mention that civil suit filed by petitioner for
cancellation of will deed in question has been dismissed in default and
restoration application filed by petitioner is pending before the Civil
Court, as such, petitioner should pursue his remedy before the Civil Court
rather before this Court by way of writ petition against the orders passed
in mutation proceeding which are summary in nature.

10. No interference is required in the matter.

11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that order
passed in the mutation proceeding shall be subject to adjudication of
dispute, if any, by the Civil Court.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 21, 2026
Vandana Y.

Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…