Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113806 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41724 of 2024 Petitioner :- Israr Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chetan Chatterjee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. One Sharif Ahmad had initiated mutation proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, which was initially allowed and his name was mutated. He transferred the land in favour of respondent No.8. An appeal was preferred by Nagar Palika Parishad, Saharanpur against the mutation order, which was allowed and the order of mutation was set aside. Nagar Palika Parishad never impleaded private respondents as parties. 2. Against the order passed in appeal, Sharif Ahmad had filed a revision which was dismissed. The private respondents had moved a mutation application in the year 2014 which has been allowed. A restoration application has been moved by the petitioner which was dismissed against which revision was filed which was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that private respondents never revealed about the sale deed when the appeal was filed by Nagar Palika Parishad and once the appeal was allowed and the revision filed by Sharif Ahmad was dismissed, the mutation application moved by private respondents should have been rejected. 4. Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the writ petition as to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that it is a summary proceedings and has relied upon coordinate Bench judgment rendered in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue and 6 Others, 2022 (4) ADJ 57. 5. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for petitioner while replying to the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that there is an exception clause provided in the said judgment and para 40(v) of the judgment provides that in case of fraud and misrepresentation, the writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is not in dispute that mutation proceedings are summary in nature. It is also admitted fact that Sharif Ahmad had transferred the property in dispute to the private respondents way back in the year 2000. Initially, the name of Sharif Ahamad was recorded in the revenue record then, in appeal, his name was deleted from the revenue records and the revision preferred thereafter was dismissed. The present case does not fall under the category of exception clause, as provided in para 40 of the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench in Kalawati (supra), which is extracted hereas 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; (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." 8. The private respondents are the purchaser from Sharif Ahmad during the time when his name was recorded in the revenue record. As per the judgment rendered in Kalawati (supra), the petitioner has a remedy of filing a declaratory suit and no writ petition under Article 226 of constitution of India is maintainable. 9. Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad