Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Member and Others

Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri M.E. Khan Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4 which is taken on record and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶12

The dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation of the property situated at Gata no. 678, Village, Village - Patna Mubarak Pur, Pargana - Bidhar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar nagar which was recorded in the name of Sukhu.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Sukhu had executed an agreement to sale in favour of petitioners on 05.11.1985 which was registered on 07.12.1985 and subsequently also executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 25.01.1986. It is on the strength of the sale deed dated 25.01.1986 that the petitioner has moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar Jalalpur which was allowed ex-parte on 17.11.1990.

¶14

It is in the said proceedings, the objections were filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 4 that Sukhu had also executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 07.11.1985 and it is on the strength of the registered sale

¶15

WRIB No. 30 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

deed respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were also claiming the right, title and interest in the disputed property and opposed the application for mutation preferred by the petitioners.

¶18

It has further been submitted that respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.01.1986 executed in favour of the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar. The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) had framed 09 issues which pertain to the merits of the case as well as with regard to aspect of limitation. The trial court has answered all the questions and with regard to the merits of the controversy, he has returned a finding in favour of the petitioners with regard to possession and also returned a finding against respondent Nos. 4 & 5 with regard to the aspect of limitation in filing the said suit proceedings and ultimately he has held that respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have failed to bring their suit within a period of 3 years and accordingly dismissed the suit by means of his judgment and order dated 07.02.2015.

¶19

It is against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2015 that respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have filed an appeal before Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. The said appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.05.2022.

¶20

The mutation proceedings initiated by the petitioners attained finality at the stage of Tehsildar on 27.05.2015 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 which order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Ayodhya Divisional) who has allowed the same by means of order dated 30.03.2022 and the subsequent revision preferred by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 before the Board of Revenue has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 08.12.2025. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the order dated 08.12.2025 has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶21

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and the authorities below were mandated to follow the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) dated 07.12.2015 and not doing so they have committed manifest illegality and accordingly prayed for setting aside the said order.

¶22

WRIB No. 30 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has supported the order of the Board of Revenue dated 08.12.2025 and has submitted that the judgment of the Civil Court would have no bearing of the present dispute inasmuch as once the suit proceedings have been dismissed on the ground of limitation then the findings on merits of the case recorded in such proceedings would have no material bearing on the rights of the parties.

¶25

I have heard rival contention of the parties and perused the record.

¶26

Undoubtedly, the proceedings for mutation are only for the purpose of recording the name of the persons who is in possession of the disputed property for the purposes of collection of revenue and such proceedings do not extent to declare right, title or interest of any person in the disputed property. It is equally true that the order of the Civil Court is binding on such summary proceedings before the revenue authorities. Both the parties have clearly submitted that regular proceedings are pending at the appellate stage before the Additional District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar where according to the private respondents the application for recall stands allowed and the appeal has to be decided on merits.

¶27

It has been further agreed that no fruitful purpose would be served by returning any finding into the merits of the controversy as adjudicated by the revenue authorities considering the fact that outcome of the regular appellate proceedings or any higher forum would be binding on the revenue authorities in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code. It is in the aforesaid circumstances with the consent of the parties the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar to decide the Civil Appeal No. 11/2015 with expedition, say, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law.

¶28

The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the suit proceedings and will not take any unnecessary adjournments.

¶29

It is further provided that till the first appeal is decided by the Additional District Judge, Ambdkar Nagar, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession of disputed property and shall not

¶30

WRIB No. 30 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

alienate the same. It is further make it clear that the protection granted by this Court shall seize to exists once appropriate orders are passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar on disposal of the appeal as directed hereinabove. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case as adjudicated by the revenue authorities and once the judgment is passed by the Additional District Judge in the appellate proceedings or any subsequent higher forum same shall be placed before any Tehsildar on an application U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code who shall pass fresh orders without being influenced by previous orders passed in the present proceedings.

¶33

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶34

February 4, 2026 Ravi/

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Member and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Member and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishvnath Shukla vs Consolidation Officer, Milkipur, Ayodhya and Others

Sajarunnisha and Another vs Addl. Commissioner Administration Second, Utraula, Division, Devi Patan, Balrampur and Ors.

Shobh Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Sundar @ Sundar Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Others

Ruchi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Ganesh Das vs Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Its Secy. and Others