Allahabad High Court
SIDDHARTH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK SARAN
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable as Section 35 mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine a substantive right.
Summary
The petitioner, Siddharth Singh, filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash three orders issued in revenue mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The respondent State of U.P. raised a preliminary objection that such summary mutation proceedings do not determine any substantive right and are therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court examined the precedent set in Writ‑B No. 295 of 2022 (Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue) which held that Section 35 proceedings are summary in nature and not maintainable before a writ court. Accepting this reasoning, the court concluded that the petition was not maintainable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue any other legal remedy available.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against orders passed in summary mutation proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 35
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- maintainability
- summary proceedings
- mutation
- certiorari
- U.P. Revenue Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35809 of 2026
Siddharth Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rohit Nandan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief:-
"(i) To issue a writ, or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing
impugned order dated 03.09.2022 and 20.07.2023 passed by Nayab
Tahsildar in Case No. 5500/2022, Guruvachan Singh Vs. Garima Singh,
order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Upziladikhari in Appeal No.
2902/2024, Siddharth Vs. Guruvachan Singh and order dated 11.06.2026
passed by Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in
revision No. 1578/2024, Siddharth Singh Vs. Guruvachan Singh and
others. (Annexure No. 1 and 2)."
3. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection about
the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the instant proceedings have
arisen out of proceeding under Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which are
summary in nature being mutation proceedings and do not determine any right to the
petitioner. He places reliance on the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
passed in Writ-B No. 295 of 2022 (Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue and 6
others).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the legal position.
5. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the
petitioner to take such recourse, as available under law.
September 23, 2026
gp
(Vivek Saran,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…