Ganga Ram vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 275 of 2026

Ganga Ram

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajaiy Kumar Mishra, Kapil Dev Chaubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 19

¶8

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶9

Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ravindra Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents are present.

¶10

In view of the proposed order being passed, issuance of notice to the respondent No. 4 is hereby dispensed with.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Reveision No. REV/58/2026/Lakhimpur Kheri (Computerized No. R202610430058 (Ganga Ram Vs. Sona Shree) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as judgment and order dated 01.12.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gola Gokaran Nath, Kheri in Appeal No. 7085 of 2023 under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by learned Tehsildar (Judicial) Gola Gokaran Nath, Kheri having Case No. 88/1767/2013 Computerized CAse No. T2021210433265 under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

¶12

Precisely the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the authorities without taking into consideration the fact that the sale deed, on the basis of which the respondent no. 4 claimed mutation, is not a valid document; proceeded to pass the order in favour of the respondent no. 4 by completely ignoring the valid objections raised by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the entertainablity of the present writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition is arising out of the mutation proceedings and as such, the same is not entertainable in light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya

¶14

WRIB No. 275 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (6) Supreme 185 .

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. The Bord of Revenue and 6 others reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578 and refuted the objections raised by learned State Counsel. He submits that this in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra) the court has carved out certain exceptions more specifically in paragraph no. 40 of the said judgment wherein it is provided that where the order or the proceedings is without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶19

This Court in the case of Amritansh Pandey versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (9) ADJ 1457 has held that the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings are ordinarily not entertainable, unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. It is also held that in view of the fact that no substantive rights of the parties are decided in the mutation proceedings, no case for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶20

For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs from the judgment passed by this court in Amritansh Pandey (supra) , is reproduced herein below:

¶21

"..................

¶22

It is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. Mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title of the person nor it has any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. In view thereof, this Court has consistently held that such writ petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of discretionary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

It would not be out of place to mention here that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. It does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of the power to issue writs. It is the discretion of the Writ Court whether to entertain writ petition or not depending upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. One of the self imposed restrictions on the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution that has evolved

¶24

WRIB No. 275 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

through judicial precedents is that the High Court should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has not pursued would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition 'not maintainable'.

¶27

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. versus Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others; reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 781, has been pleased to explain the distinction between the 'entertainability' and 'maintainability' of a writ petition. The extract from paragraph 4 of the said judgment is quoted below:

¶28

"......Though elementary, it needs to be restated that “entertainability” and “maintainability” of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to “maintainability” goes to the root of the matter and if such objection were found to be of substance, the courts would be rendered incapable of even receiving the lis for adjudication. On the other hand, the question of “entertainability” is entirely within the realm of discretion of the high courts, writ remedy being discretionary. A writ petition despite being maintainable may not be entertained by a high court for very many reasons or relief could even be refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the claimed relief would not further public interest........…"

¶29

The reluctance of this Court to interfere with the orders under challenge in the instant petition, is primarily that the same are the outcome of the mutation proceedings and it is a settled legal position that entry in the revenue records does not confer title to a person whose name appears in the records-of-rights, which is maintained for revenue purpose and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Further, the provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 makes it more clear that orders passed under the provisions relating to mutation of revenue records would not act as a bar against any person from establishing his rights in the property by way of suit for declaration. For ready reference the provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted below:- “39-Certain orders of revenue officers not to debar a suit. -No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of section 35 or by a SubDivisional Officer under subsection (3) of section 38 or by a Commissioner under sub-section (4) of section 38 shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under section 144.”

¶30

Normally, the High Court in exercise of its plenary power does not entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the Revenue Courts in mutation

¶31

WRIB No. 275 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

proceedings, except under the conditions as formulated by this Court in cases as mentioned above.

¶34

The fact of the present case does not attract the above mentioned exceptions as carved out by this Court under which this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution may entertain a writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings that are admittedly summary in nature.

¶35

It is well settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily the Writ Courts decline to entertain the writ petition as not entertainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings, unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court.

¶36

In view of the above, as no substantive rights of the parties have been decided or are likely to be decided in the mutation proceedings, no case for exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to get his rights/title in respect of the land in question be crystallised by competent Civil Court."

¶37

Taking into consideration the judgements as referred here-in-above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not attract the exceptions as carved out by this court in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra) under which this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may entertain the present writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings that are admittedly summary in nature.

¶38

11.Needless to say that it is always open for the petitioner to get his rights/title in respect of the land in question, be crystallized by competent Court having jurisdiction.

¶39

Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Courts, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to get his rights/title in respect of the land in question, if necessary, adjudicated or declared by the competent court of jurisdiction. It is further directed that the order passed in the mutation proceedings would abide by the decision of the competent court, if any, and the said court would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding or observation made in the mutation orders or during mutation proceedings.

¶40

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶41

April 13, 2026 Virendra

¶42

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

Ganga Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Kohli vs Virat Chandra Chaudhary

Smt. Shweta Singh vs Anil Kumar Singh

Smt. Anshu Kumari Alias Anshu vs Ramesh Chandra

Sheetla Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Pyare Lal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue, Lko. and 20 Others

Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others