Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77731 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38778 of 2024 Petitioner :- Chet Ram Respondent :- State Of Up And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Pandey,Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar (respondent no.2) whereby mutation application of the petitioner filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been rejected on the ground that the property under the sale deed on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming mutation is mortgaged with the Bank and the petitioner could not have adduce any evidence to show that the property has been released from the mortgage. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed registered on 13.03.2023 at Bahi No.1, Page Nos.97 to 156 of Zild No. 18075 at Serial No.4651, has been executed in favour of the petitioner by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), F.T.C., Mathura in Original Suit No.39 of 2010 (Chet Ram versus Smt. Sheela and another). He further submits that the then owner of the property, namely, Smt. Sheela Devi mortgaged the property during the pendency of the aforesaid Suit No.39 of 2010. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), the impediment of aforesaid mortgage cannot be a valid ground for rejection of the mutation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the instant writ petition is arising out of mutation proceeding which is summary in nature and as such the instant writ petition is not entertainable. He further submits that even otherwise also the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid situation, without adverting on the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Sub Divisional Officer concerned within a period of one month from today. 7. It is provided that in case such an appeal is filed by the petitioner under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Court concerned within the aforesaid period as has been fixed by this Court herein above, the learned Appellate Court shall entertain the same on merits and decide it, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously say preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the same, as per Sub Rule 4 of Rule 183 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 8. With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Abhishek Gupta Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad