HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34034 of 2025 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. It is contended that respondent no. 6, Anita @ Vinita after death of her husband Anand Pal has sold the share of Anand Pal to respondent no. 5, Vikas Kumar. Petitioner is brother of Anand Pal. He is aggrieved by sale- deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5 by respondent no. 6 for her share as well as share of minor children of Anand Pal. The mutation application was allowed against which an appeal was preferred which was dismissed, thereafter, a revision was filed which has also been dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that already a suit for cancellation of sale-deed has been filed, which is pending consideration. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature as already held by co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue and 6 others, 2022 (4) ADJ 578. In para no. 40, the court has carved out exceptions for maintainability of writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, which is as under:- "40. Having regard to the foregoing discussion the exceptions under which a writ petition may be entertained against orders passed in mutation proceedings would arise where : (i) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jagpal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) (ii) rights and title of the parties have already been decided by a competent court, and that has been varied in mutation proceedings; (iii) mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into questions relating to entitlement to succeed the property, touching the merits of the rival claims; (iv) rights have been created which are against provisions of any statute, or the entry itself confers a title by virtue of some statutory provision; (v) the orders have been obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, or by fabricating documents; (vi) the order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction; (vii) there has been a violation of principles of natural justice." 5. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the exceptions and he has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed which is pending consideration. Moreover, respondent no. 6, Anita has only transferred share of Anand Pal along with minor children of Anand Pal in favour of respondent no. 5. 6. No case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. 8. Petitioner to pursue his civil suit. September 25, 2025 V.S.Singh WRIC No. 34034 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad