Gyanu Devi vs Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Further in view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of aforesaid application, the application for amendment is allowed.

¶14

Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is directed to make necessary amendment / impleadment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day.

¶15

(Order on Writ Petition)

¶16

Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, learned counsel for private respondents.

¶17

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute in the present case pertains to the land Khata No. 86 (Gata Nos. 208/0.061

¶18

WRIC No. 857 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

hectare, 211/0.028 hectare and 212/0.081 hectare), Khata No. 102 (Gata No. 17.0.688 hectare) Khata No. 103(Gata Nos. 18/0.045 hectare and 19/0.065 hectare) and Khata No. 188/(Gata No. 35/1.797 hectare) situated at Vilalge Dulhampur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda.

¶21

It has further been submitted that Smt. Sursata W/o of Kunj Bihari who was the guardian of Meera and Keera (minors) had executed a sale deed in respect of land in dispute in favour of petitioner by means of a sale deed dated 28.07.1998 which was duly registered on 17.01.2001.

¶22

It has further been stated that on attaining the age of majority the two sisters who are the recorded tenure holders, namely, Meera and Keera executed another sale deed in favour of respondents sometimes in 2002.

¶23

On the strength of the sale deed executed in 2002 the respondents moved an application for mutation which was allowed and the disputed land came to be recorded in the name of respondents. Subsequently in 2017 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 17.1.2001 the petitioner filed an application for mutation.

¶24

The application of the petitioner was also allowed by the Naib Tehsildar, Kharagpur by means of order dated 06.05.2017 and the name of Sursata W/o Kunj Bihari was deleted from the revenue records and in place name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the revenue records.

¶25

Against the order dated 06.05.2017, an appeal was filed by Rakesh Kashyap (respondent No. 6) S/o Gyanu Devi (petitioner) stating that the sale deed executed in 1998 and registered on 17.01.2001 was illegal and arbitrary and voidable as the Nani of the recorded tenure holders had executed the sale deed without obtaining the prior permission as provided for in Section 8(2) of the Hindu Majority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

¶26

The appeal was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 18.01.2023 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devi Patan Mandal, District Gonda. It is in the appellate proceedings that the other respondents had also got themselves impleaded and it was stated that they were never made parties either in the mutation proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar or in the appeal by Rakesh Kashyap(respondent No. 6) and therefore the

¶27

WRIC No. 857 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

entire proceedings have been conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate also find favour of the arguments raised by the impleaded parties and allowed the revision and remanded the matter back for consideration afresh before the trial court. Against the order dated 18.01.2023, a revision was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed on 31.12.2025 affirming the order of the appellate court dated 18.01.2023.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the validity of the orders dated 18.01.2023 and 31.12.2025 has submitted that at no point of time has the sale deed registered on 17.01.2001 being subject matter to challenge before any court and at best the said sale deed would be voidable and that too at the instance of the minors. It was stated that the minor who had now been attained majority have never challenged the sale deed dated 17.01.2001 and consequently there can be no dispute with regard to validity of the order dated 17.01.2001.

¶31

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that the respondents are subsequent purchasers of the disputed land and once the land has devolved upon the petitioner by means of the registered sale deed dated 17.01.2001 then the said land could not have been subjected to sale by the original tenure holders in 2002.

¶32

Accordingly, it has been stated that their rights are superior to that of the private respondents and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the mutation application of the respondents was allowed and their name were existing in the revenue records and therefore the Naib Tehsildar committed manifest error of law and fact in not issuing notices to the private respondents and further submits that this aspect of the matter has been rightly considered by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority and the matter has been remitted back to the Naib Tehsildar for consideration afresh and accordingly supported the impugned orders.

¶34

Considering the rival contention of the parties and without going into

¶35

WRIC No. 857 of 2026

¶36

4

¶37

merits of the case, this Court finds that undoubtedly the property came to be mutated in the name of private respondents in 2002 itself and also the fact that in the application for mutation on the strength of the Sursata sale deed dated 17.01.2001, an application was given after nearly 17 years without making the private respondents as parties.

¶38

Even in the order passed by Naib Tehsildar dated 06.05.2017 the name of Sunita Devi W/o Prithraj (respondent No. 3) and Chhaviraji W/o Gya Prasad name has been directed to be deleted but they were never made nor were they heard by the Naib Tehsildar before passing the said order.

¶39

This Court is of the considered view that in proceedings for mutation the recorded tenure holder is a necessary party and he has a right to be heard in such proceedings. Even in case it is demonstrated that the name of the recorded tenure holders is without any basis illegal and arbitrary still he has a right to be given an opportunity of hearing before his name can be deleted from the revenue records. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 18.01.2023 or in the order dated 31.12.2025.

¶40

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed . Considering the fact that matter has been remanded to the Naib Tehsildar, it is expected that he shall proceed with the matter and conclude with expedition in accordance with law.

¶41

The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before Naib Tehsildar. It will be open for both the parties to place all the materials of law and fact before Naib Tehsildar.

¶42

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶43

February 17, 2026 Ravi/

¶44

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

Gyanu Devi v. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanu Devi v. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Asre vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Malti Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 22 Others

Javed Alam vs Addl. Magistrate -I (Atrikat Magistrate -I), Ayodhya and Others

Nirmala vs Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil-Tarabganj, Gonda and Another

Hari Shankar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy .Deptt . of Revenue, Lko and 5 Others

Jag Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Ayodhya and 2 Others