Goberdhan Lal v. Sirdar and others, as contained in Annexure No

: N.c. Upadhyay, Smt. Sudha Tripathi : C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Pandey Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri N.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.7.2005 passed by the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in revision no.162 (L.R.) of 1993-94; Goberdhan Lal v. Sirdar and others, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. ii. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to enter the names of the petitioners named above in the revenue records of the property in question in lieu of late Sri Jwala Prasad on the basis of the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 11.01.1989 relating to the land Gata No.179/2.56 D., 125/0.69 D. and 235/0.69 D situated in the village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri, as well as on the basis of the sons and legal heirs of late Sri Sirdar who was also sole legal heir of the rest unsold property of Sri Jwala Prasad according to the concerning law relating to the land Gata No.64/3.47D., 172/1.61D., 59/0.31 D. and 69/0.02D. Situated Dhaurahara, District Kheri in mutation case no.3/16/75/818/941 U/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue 2 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 Act, 1901, Village Mahewa, Paragana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri; Goberdhan Lal and others v. Jwala Prasad vide order dated 17.04.1993 and iii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners named above from the land in question, and iv. to pass any other suitable order or direction in favour of the petitioners and against the opposite parties named above which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case, and v. to allow the instant writ petition with cost throughout.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 has got an unregistered will deed from Sri Jwala Prasad regarding the land in question on 8.1.1989. On 11.01.1989, petitioner nos.1 to 3 have got a registered sale deed executed by Sri Jwala Prasad/ the original tenure holder of the property in question i.e. Gata No.179/2.56D, 125/0.69 D., and 235/0.69D. Situated in the Village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri after receiving full consideration from the petitioner nos.1 to 3. The father of the petitioners/ Sirdar has got a will deed from Sri Jwala Prasad regarding the land in question on 17.01.1989. After the death of Sri Jwala Prasad, the names of the petitioners as well as opposite party no.2 have entered in the revenue records of the land in question in lieu of Sri Jwala Prasad by means of P.A.-11 as his legal heirs on 23.01.1989. The trial Court has allowed the mutation in favour of the father of the petitioners/ Sirar on the basis of the his aforesaid will deed dated 17.01.1989 vide order dated 4.10.1989. On 29.12.1989, the trial Court has allowed the mutation in favour of the opposite party no.2 also on the basis of his aforesaid will deed dated 4.1.1989. The mutation orders dated 4.10.1989 and 29.12.1989 have been set aside by the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri vide order dated 17.4.1993 and further the mutation has been allowed in favour of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 on the basis of their registered sale deed executed by Sri Jwala Prasad/ the original tenure holder of the land in question on 11.01.1989 in their favour after receiving full consideration for the same from them regarding the land Gata No. 179/2.56D, 125/0.69 D., and 235/0.69D. Situated in the Village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri and also allowed the mutation in favour of the father of the petitioners/ Sirdar as a sole legal heirs of Sri Jwala Prasad regarding his rest unsold land Gata No.64/3.47D., 172/1.61D., 59/0.31 D. and 69/0.02D. situated in the aforesaid village The opposite party no.2 has simultaneously preferred an appeal U/s 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Collector, 3 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 Dhaurahara, District Kheri as well as a revision U/s 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow- Division, Lucknow against the order dated 17.4.93 as passed by the learned Tehsildar, in mutation case no.3/16/75/818/941 U/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; Goberdhan Lal and others v. Jwala Prasad. Dhaurahara, District Kheri The Additional Commissioner, Lucnow-Division, Luknow has been pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 17.04.1993 passed by the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri in the aforesaid mutatation case vide order dated 10.09.1993. On 4.1.1994, the Deputy Collector, Dhaurahara, District Kheri has been pleased to keept the aforesaid appeal of the opposite party no.2 in abeyance on the basis of the interim order dated 10.09.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow in the aforesaid revision. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid revision on the basis of the alternative remedy vide order dated 18.04.1994 and also advised that the revisionist/ opposite party no.2 may file a revision before the concerning Collector if he wants so, but the revisionist/ opposite party no.2 did not do so. On 30.05.1994, the opposite party no.2 has preferred a revision no.162(L.R.) of 1993-94 U/s 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow on 30.5.1994. The opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has been pleased to stay the operation and enforcement of the order dated 18.4.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow in aforesaid revision vide order dated 3.6.1994. Vide order dated 25.7.2005, the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has been pleased to set aside the orders dated 18.04.1994, 04.01.1994 and 17.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow, Deputy Collector, Dhaurahara, District Kheri and the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri in aforesaid revision, appeal and mutation case respectively and further pleased to remand back the case to the trial Court to decide the case as a fresh after passing 16 years away of the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners which has already been confirmed since it has never been challenged by any body in any court of law and also the same has never been cancelled by the competent court of law, Hence this writ petition is being preferred by the petitioners name above.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revision was decided after 16 years without taking into consideration the remedy of appeal available to respondent no.2. He next submits that the sale deed was never challenged by filing declaratory suit for declaration of the sale as null and void, therefore the petitioners are entitled to be mutated in the revenue record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the order of the Board of Revenue is not justifiable in law as once the appeal was 4 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 pending against the order it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to decide the appeal.

6. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 25.7.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter has been remanded by the Board of Revenue to the trial Court (Tehsildar) vide order dated 25.7.2005, therefore, there is no need for any interference in the matter. He next submits that the order of the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

8. Last submission of learned Standing Counsel is that once the Court has remanded back the case to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation matter afresh, there is no scope in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.

10. The mutation cases of both the parties were allowed by the trial Court and the names were entered in the revenue record. When the trial Court (Tehsildar) allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, the order was challenged in the revision as well as in the appeal filed before the Deputy Collector as well as before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision and against that, revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue remanding the matter to the trial Court.

11. In the opinion of this Court, there is no scope of interference in the order dated 25.7.2005 as it has left open to the Tehsildar on remand of the matter to pass a fresh order on the case of mutation by hearing both the parties. It is also of the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality in remanding the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case.

12. Considering the above, this Court declines to interfere in the matter in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of Law.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

14. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 GK Sinha (Irshad Ali, J.) GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: N.c. Upadhyay, Smt. Sudha Tripathi : C.S.C., Vijay Kumar Pandey Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri N.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Divesh Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.7.2005 passed by the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in revision no.162 (L.R.) of 1993-94; Goberdhan Lal v. Sirdar and others, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. ii. to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to enter the names of the petitioners named above in the revenue records of the property in question in lieu of late Sri Jwala Prasad on the basis of the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 11.01.1989 relating to the land Gata No.179/2.56 D., 125/0.69 D. and 235/0.69 D situated in the village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri, as well as on the basis of the sons and legal heirs of late Sri Sirdar who was also sole legal heir of the rest unsold property of Sri Jwala Prasad according to the concerning law relating to the land Gata No.64/3.47D., 172/1.61D., 59/0.31 D. and 69/0.02D. Situated Dhaurahara, District Kheri in mutation case no.3/16/75/818/941 U/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue 2 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 Act, 1901, Village Mahewa, Paragana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri; Goberdhan Lal and others v. Jwala Prasad vide order dated 17.04.1993 and iii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners named above from the land in question, and iv. to pass any other suitable order or direction in favour of the petitioners and against the opposite parties named above which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case, and v. to allow the instant writ petition with cost throughout.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 has got an unregistered will deed from Sri Jwala Prasad regarding the land in question on 8.1.1989. On 11.01.1989, petitioner nos.1 to 3 have got a registered sale deed executed by Sri Jwala Prasad/ the original tenure holder of the property in question i.e. Gata No.179/2.56D, 125/0.69 D., and 235/0.69D. Situated in the Village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri after receiving full consideration from the petitioner nos.1 to 3. The father of the petitioners/ Sirdar has got a will deed from Sri Jwala Prasad regarding the land in question on 17.01.1989. After the death of Sri Jwala Prasad, the names of the petitioners as well as opposite party no.2 have entered in the revenue records of the land in question in lieu of Sri Jwala Prasad by means of P.A.-11 as his legal heirs on 23.01.1989. The trial Court has allowed the mutation in favour of the father of the petitioners/ Sirar on the basis of the his aforesaid will deed dated 17.01.1989 vide order dated 4.10.1989. On 29.12.1989, the trial Court has allowed the mutation in favour of the opposite party no.2 also on the basis of his aforesaid will deed dated 4.1.1989. The mutation orders dated 4.10.1989 and 29.12.1989 have been set aside by the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri vide order dated 17.4.1993 and further the mutation has been allowed in favour of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 on the basis of their registered sale deed executed by Sri Jwala Prasad/ the original tenure holder of the land in question on 11.01.1989 in their favour after receiving full consideration for the same from them regarding the land Gata No. 179/2.56D, 125/0.69 D., and 235/0.69D. Situated in the Village Mahewa, Pargana and Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri and also allowed the mutation in favour of the father of the petitioners/ Sirdar as a sole legal heirs of Sri Jwala Prasad regarding his rest unsold land Gata No.64/3.47D., 172/1.61D., 59/0.31 D. and 69/0.02D. situated in the aforesaid village The opposite party no.2 has simultaneously preferred an appeal U/s 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Deputy Collector, 3 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 Dhaurahara, District Kheri as well as a revision U/s 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow- Division, Lucknow against the order dated 17.4.93 as passed by the learned Tehsildar, in mutation case no.3/16/75/818/941 U/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; Goberdhan Lal and others v. Jwala Prasad. Dhaurahara, District Kheri The Additional Commissioner, Lucnow-Division, Luknow has been pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 17.04.1993 passed by the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri in the aforesaid mutatation case vide order dated 10.09.1993. On 4.1.1994, the Deputy Collector, Dhaurahara, District Kheri has been pleased to keept the aforesaid appeal of the opposite party no.2 in abeyance on the basis of the interim order dated 10.09.1993 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow in the aforesaid revision. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid revision on the basis of the alternative remedy vide order dated 18.04.1994 and also advised that the revisionist/ opposite party no.2 may file a revision before the concerning Collector if he wants so, but the revisionist/ opposite party no.2 did not do so. On 30.05.1994, the opposite party no.2 has preferred a revision no.162(L.R.) of 1993-94 U/s 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow on 30.5.1994. The opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has been pleased to stay the operation and enforcement of the order dated 18.4.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow in aforesaid revision vide order dated 3.6.1994. Vide order dated 25.7.2005, the opposite party no.1/ Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow has been pleased to set aside the orders dated 18.04.1994, 04.01.1994 and 17.04.1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow-Division, Lucknow, Deputy Collector, Dhaurahara, District Kheri and the Tehsildar, Dhaurahara, District Kheri in aforesaid revision, appeal and mutation case respectively and further pleased to remand back the case to the trial Court to decide the case as a fresh after passing 16 years away of the execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners which has already been confirmed since it has never been challenged by any body in any court of law and also the same has never been cancelled by the competent court of law, Hence this writ petition is being preferred by the petitioners name above.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revision was decided after 16 years without taking into consideration the remedy of appeal available to respondent no.2. He next submits that the sale deed was never challenged by filing declaratory suit for declaration of the sale as null and void, therefore the petitioners are entitled to be mutated in the revenue record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the order of the Board of Revenue is not justifiable in law as once the appeal was 4 WRIC No. - 1005468 of 2005 pending against the order it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to decide the appeal.

6. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 25.7.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the matter has been remanded by the Board of Revenue to the trial Court (Tehsildar) vide order dated 25.7.2005, therefore, there is no need for any interference in the matter. He next submits that the order of the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

8. Last submission of learned Standing Counsel is that once the Court has remanded back the case to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation matter afresh, there is no scope in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material available on record.

10. The mutation cases of both the parties were allowed by the trial Court and the names were entered in the revenue record. When the trial Court (Tehsildar) allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner nos.1 and 2, the order was challenged in the revision as well as in the appeal filed before the Deputy Collector as well as before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision and against that, revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue remanding the matter to the trial Court.

11. In the opinion of this Court, there is no scope of interference in the order dated 25.7.2005 as it has left open to the Tehsildar on remand of the matter to pass a fresh order on the case of mutation by hearing both the parties. It is also of the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality in remanding the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation case.

12. Considering the above, this Court declines to interfere in the matter in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of Law.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

14. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 GK Sinha (Irshad Ali, J.) GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench