Allahabad High Court
SMT. NARGISH PARVEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The High Court held that it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the mutation order while a statutory appeal is pending, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Nargish Parveen, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a mutation order dated 8 July 2026 passed by the Naib Tehsildar of Dhampur in favour of private respondent No.6, and to restrain any alteration of the disputed land pending a statutory appeal. The petitioner alleged that the mutation order was illegal, that the sale deed executed by respondent No.5 was beyond the Tehsildar’s jurisdiction, and that an injunction in a related civil suit was being violated. The State, through its standing counsel, contended that a mutation appeal was already pending before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and that the petitioner should pursue relief there, noting that no documents of the appeal were annexed. The Court examined the record, noted the existence of the pending appeal and the concurrent civil suit, and held that there is no jurisdiction for the High Court to interfere with the mutation order under Article 226 while the appeal is pending. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the pending appeal be decided by the appropriate appellate authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to quash a mutation order when a statutory appeal against that order is pending before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain interim relief such as mandamus or injunction from the High Court despite the pendency of the appeal.
Subjects
- mutation order
- Article 226
- statutory appeal
- Naib Tehsildar
- Sub Divisional Magistrate
- civil suit
- injunction
- status quo
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 32432 of 2026
Smt. Nargish Parveen
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Kumar
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned mutation order
dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned Naib
Tehsildar Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor in Mutation
Case No. 5433 of 2024.
b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities
not to give effect to the impugned mutation order
during the pendency of the statutory appeal before
the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
c. to issue a writ, order or direction restraining the
private respondents, their agents, servants and any
person claiming through them from: changing the
nature of the disputed property; carrying out plotting
or colonization, raising any construction; alienating
or transferring the disputed property; and creating
any third-party rights over the disputed land till the
final disposal of the statutory appeal and/or the
WRIC No. 32432 of 2026
2
present writ petition.
d. to direct the respondent authorities to ensure
maintenance of status quo regarding the nature and
possession of the disputed property."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mutation order
dated 8.7.2026 has been passed in favour of private respondent
no. 6 in illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that sale deed
cannot be executed by respondent no.5 in favour of private
respondent no.6 as such, the mutation court has no jurisdiction to
pass mutation order. He submitted that in civil suit filed on behalf of
petitioner an injunction order is operating even then private
respondent no.6 is changing the nature of plot in question. He
submitted that impugned mutation order dated 08.07.2026 passed
by Naib Tehsildar should be set aside. He further submitted that
mutation appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner is pending before
Sub Divisional Officer.
4. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents submitted that it is mentioned in para no.12 of
the writ petition that mutation appeal is pending as such petitioner
should participate in the pending proceeding of mutation appeal
rather writ petition before this Court. He submitted that no
particular of pending appeal has been annexed along with instant
petition, as such no direction can be issued in respect to the
pending mutation appeal.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that mutation order has been
passed by Naib Tehsildar on 08.07.2026 in favour of respondent
no.6.
7. Perusal of records demonstrate that mutation appeal has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner against the mutation order dated
WRIC No. 32432 of 2026
3
8.7.2026 passed by Naib Tehisildar. The record further
demonstrate that aforementioned suit no.1132 of 2007 filed at the
instance of the petitioner is pending before the Civil Court.
8. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the
case, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as mutation appeal at the instance of
petitioner is stated to be pending before Sub Divisional Officer.
9. No interference is required in this matter.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with observation that pending
mutation appeal filed by petitioner shall be decided by the
appellate court/ Sub Divisional Magistrate in accordance with law.
September 11, 2026
PS*
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…