Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — whose claim is that he was the adopted son of Chhedi (Sri Chhedi) rather than the son of Rajit Ram — ought to have his name recorded in the mutation proceedings. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In light of the fact that the disputed questions (whether the petitioner was the son of Rajit Ram or the adopted son of Chhedi) are yet to be considered in Regular Suit No. 72 of 2010, where the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.11.2009 is sought, there are no accentuating circumstances to entertain the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings; the petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits.

Key takeaways

Mutation proceedings are only summary in nature, and any order passed by the Competent Court on the regular side would bind the mutation proceedings.ratio¶para 7
Mere dismissal of the instant petition may not come in the way of the petitioner contesting his proceedings before the regular court.ratio¶para 8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), WRIT - C No. 1674 of 2025, decided 24.02.2025 by Jaspreet Singh, J. (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:11499). Petitioner Raghav Ram claimed he had been adopted by one Sri Chhedi and that his name ought to have been recorded in mutation proceedings over the latter's property; per his case, another brother procured execution of a sale deed by subterfuge. The order dated 31.12.2009 of respondent no. 3 in the mutation proceedings had been affirmed by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30.01.2025 rejecting the petitioner's revision; criminal proceedings with a charge sheet stood initiated against the brother. Observing that the question whether the petitioner was the son of Rajit Ram or the adopted son of Chhedi was already before the Competent Civil Court in Regular Suit No. 72 of 2010, where cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.11.2009 and injunction were sought, and that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and bound by regular-side orders, the Court dismissed the writ petition without expressing any opinion on merits, expressly leaving the petitioner free to contest before the Civil Court.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11499

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1674 of 2025

Petitioner :- Raghav Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Under challenge is the order dated 30th January, 2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the revision preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 31.12.2009 in mutation proceedings.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question belonged to one Sri Chhedi who had adopted the petitioner as his own son.

It is urged that in respect of the aforesaid property, the other brother of the petitioner by resorting to subterfuge got the sale deed executed. This came to be challenged in mutation proceedings which was held against the petitioner. It was thereafter challenged by filing a revision which has also been dismissed.

It is also urged that the issue which clearly indicates that the petitioner was the son of Sri Chhedi and his name ought to have been recorded and in this view of the matter, the courts concerned have failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law especially when criminal proceedings have also been initiated against the brother of the petitioner wherein a charge sheet has been filed.

Having considered the aforesaid and from the perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the plea as to whether the petitioner was the son of Rajit Ram or the adopted son of Chhedi is the matter which is already engaging the attention of the Competent Civil Court in Regular Suit No. 72 of 2010 wherein the petitioner has already sought the relief of

cancellation of sale deed dated 19.11.2009 and injunction.

In light of the fact that the disputed questions have yet to be considered in the suit and the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed has been called in question, there are no accentuating circumstances which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition arising out of the mutation proceedings, hence, without expressing any opinion on merits, the present petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to contest the proceedings before the Civil Court, needless to say that mutation proceedings are only summary in nature and any order passed by the Competent Court on the regular side would bind the mutation proceedings.

It is made clear that mere dismissal of the instant petition may not come in the way of the petitioner to contest his proceedings before the regular court.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Asheesh/-

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench