Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40320 Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43752 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dilip Jotwani Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Rana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent-Authorities to take appropriate decision on the petitioner's application dated 02.12.2024. Further prayer is to issue a direction not to register any instrument with regard to the property in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property based upon testamentary succession flowing from a registered Will dated 22.08.2013 executed by his Uncle (Fufa) and though the testator died in the year 2014, the petitioner could not take steps to get his name mutated in the revenue records. 4. He submits that respondent No.6, being stranger, claiming himself to be maternal grand son of the testator, got his name mutated in the year 2024. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that prior to the date of mutation order, an application was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to conduct an inquiry but no order was passed thereon and, later on also an application has been filed in December, 2024 but till today, the Authorities have not acted upon the same. 5. On perusal of record, I find that mutation order has already been passed in favour of respondent No.6 and learned counsel is not in a position to state that the order has been challenged or not so far. It also appears that certain agreement for sale has been executed and registered at the strength of mutation entry. 6. This Court is of the view that irrespective of the fact that certain applications might have been filed by the petitioner requesting an inquiry in the matter, unless the order mutating the name of any person is challenged before appropriate forum, conducting inquiry on an administrative side is an exercise in futility and, in fact, not recognized under the provisions of revenue law. 7. In view of the above, no direction can be issued to decide the application dated 02.12.2024 which is absolutely administrative in nature. 8. As far as second prayer is concerned, the same is, infact, in the nature of injunction which, this Court, at the first instance, cannot grant in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Court is of the view that against the mutation order, the petitioner has remedy to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law and similar is the position with regard to second prayer made in the writ petition. While declining to grant any relief claimed in this writ petition, the petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail alternative statutory remedies. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon validity of the Will or interse relationship between the testator and the respondent No.6. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad