Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42730 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41858 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shashi Prabha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhat Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Revision No.1038 of 2019, under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the one hand the respondent no.4 namely Krishna Mohan filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, in respect of the plot no.239 in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Etawah, which is pending and on the other hand, he filed a Revision challenging the order of mutation dated 07.05.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, itself was not maintainable, but the learned Additional Commissioner (respondent no.2) without taking into consideration the factual as well as the legal aspect of the case, allowed the revision that too filed by the person who was not even a party to the mutation proceeding and remanded the matter to the court of Tehsildar (respondent no.3) with a direction to decide the same within a period of three months. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has raised preliminary objection regarding the entertainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the instant writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the Case of Amritansh Pandey versus State of U.P. and others; reported in 2023(9) ADJ 457 and also in the case of Vishram Singh versus State of U.P. and others; passed in Writ- C No. 29313 of 2024. 6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the instant writ petition does not fall under any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in the Case of Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board Of Revenue And 6 Others; reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578 and as such the same is not entertainable. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the law is well settled that ordinarily the writ petitions are not entertainable against the orders passed by the Revenue Court in the mutation proceedings and further the controversy involved herein does not attract any of the exceptions as carved out in paragraph no.40 of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is consigned to record. However, without entering into the merit of the claims of the petitioner, this Court in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to record its observation that the petitioner is always at liberty to get her rights adjudicated or declared by the competent court of jurisdiction. 8. Needless to say that the order passed in the mutation proceedings which are admittedly of summary nature, would abide by the decision of the competent court and the said court while deciding the case before it, would not, in any manner, be influenced by any findings or observations made by the Revenue Court in the mutation proceedings. Order Date :- 24.3.2025/Abhishek Gupta Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad