Allahabad High Court

BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 9 OTHERS

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

Holding

The mutation orders are valid and cannot be interfered with; the petitioner must pursue the pending civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

Summary

The petitioner challenged three orders that recorded the names of private respondents as owners of a plot based on a registered sale deed, arguing that the sale deed was under a pending civil suit for cancellation and therefore the mutation court lacked jurisdiction. The petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Tehsildar, the Additional Sub‑Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner under the U.P. Revenue Code. The respondents contended that the mutation court correctly exercised its jurisdiction by relying on the registered sale deed and that any dispute over title should be resolved in the civil suit. The Court observed that the mutation proceedings were properly conducted and that the pending civil suit provides the appropriate forum for adjudicating the title dispute. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the mutation orders, directing the petitioner to pursue relief in the civil suit, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Can a mutation court record title based on a registered sale deed that is subject to a pending civil suit for cancellation?
Whether the appellate and revisional orders under the U.P. Revenue Code can be set aside by a writ of certiorari?
Is the petitioner required to seek relief in the pending civil suit rather than through a writ petition?

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 210, 34, 35, 35(2)

Subjects

mutation
sale deed
pending civil suit
cancellation of sale deed
jurisdiction
certiorari
U.P. Revenue Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30444 of 2026

Bhagwan Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aklank Kumar Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Deepak Gaur

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

1. Heard Mr. Satvik Jain, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri
Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay
Pratap Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and
Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation proceeding under
Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was decided by the
Tehsildar vide order dated 27.9.2022, directing to record the name
of the private respondent nos. 4 to 9 on the basis of registered sale
deed dated 16.5.2012 in the place of Smt. Phulabeti daughter of
Feran Singh and her legal heirs. Appeal under Section 35 (2) of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner against
the order of mutation was dismissed by the Additional Sub
Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.9.2024. Revision under
Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the
petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2026.
Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following
relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari,
quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the
Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jhansi Division,
Jhansi in Revision No. 1270 of 2024 (Bhagwan Singh Vs.
WRIC No. 30444 of 2026
2

Ahmad Khan and Others) (Computerized Case
No.C202406000001270) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006; the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 passed by
the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, First, Lalitpur in Appeal
No.1393 of 2022 (Bhagwan Singh Vs. Ahmad Khan and
Others) (Computerized Case No.D202206450001393) under
Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the
impugned order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar,
Tehsil Lalitpur, Lalitpur in Case No.963 of 2019 Mohd. Rahish
Khan Vs. Phoolabeti) (Computerized Case
No.T201906450100963) under Section 34/35 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure Nos.8, 7 and 4 to the writ
petition)."

3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mutation court
has illegally passed the order for recording the name of private
respondent on the basis of sale deed which cannot be relied upon.
He submitted that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed in question,
is pending before the civil court, as such, mutation court cannot
decide the issue relating to title in respect to the plot in question.
He submitted that till the disposal of the civil suit in respect to the
sale deed in question, the order passed in the mutation proceeding
by the mutation court, should be kept in abeyance.

4. On the other hand, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-
respondents and learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha
submitted that all the three courts have passed the order for
recording the name of the private respondents on the basis of
registered sale deed, as such, no interference is required in the
matter. They further submitted that sale deed in question has been
challenged in civil suit, as such, the petitioner should contest the
proceeding of civil suit rather mutation proceeding which has been
finalized by all the three courts.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the state and
perused the records.
WRIC No. 30444 of 2026
3

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for mutation
was passed on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of
private respondents. There is also no dispute about the fact that
appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been
dismissed by the appellate as well as revisional court.

7. The mutation order passed by the Tehsildar demonstrate that
there is proper exercise of jurisdiction by the mutation court for
recording the name of the vendees in pursuance of the registered
sale deed in question.

8. It is also material to mention that civil suit for cancellation of sale
deed in question, is pending before the civil court, as such,
petitioner should pursue the remedy before the civil court in proper
manner.

9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the
mutation proceeding.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that order
passed in the mutation proceeding shall be subject to adjudication
of dispute by the civil court in the pending civil suit for cancellation
of sale deed in question.

(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 21, 2026
C.Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…