Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6760 Court No. - 8 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 505 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Pal Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- Tehsildar, Tehsil Sandeela, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Tehsildar Sandila in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the mutation proceedings, the Court had noticed that the Will of 1961 was duly proved in the civil court and a copy of the judgment was also placed before the Tehsildar, however, the same has been ignored. It is urged that the findings recorded in regular proceedings are binding on the court of limited jurisdiction such as mutation court, however, by not taking note of the aforesaid, the Tehsildar has committed an error which requires the interference of this Court. Learned Standing counsel has raised an objection that against the order of dismissal of mutation the petitioners have remedy of filing a revision before the Revisional court concerned and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition may not be entertained. In response, the counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the petitioners may have an alternate statutory remedy but the same is not an absolute bar for this Court to entertain the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions he relies upon the decision of the Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer; 2023 SCC Online SC 95. It is further urged that there are catena of decisions wherein it has been held that decisions rendered by the civil court if placed before the mutation court the same would be binding and this aspect has also not been considered by the mutation court which renders the decision bad in the eyes of law and since only legal question is involved, accordingly, the Court may entertain the petition. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that in so far as the availability of statutory remedy is concerned, it is not disputed, however, from the prima facie reading of the impugned order only to test as to whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction for entertaining the petition, where the petitioners already have a statutory remedy, it reveals that the decision of the civil court which was placed before the mutation court was only a copy and not the certified copy. In absence of the certified copy, prima facie the Court found that may be it was held in the civil court that the Will was proved but nevertheless in the mutation proceedings there was something more which had to be done. In order to find out whether the judgment had a binding effect, the provisions of Section 42 and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act also need to be considered. All these are issues which are open to be considered before the regular forum as provided in law. In so far as the facts of the case in case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd (supra) is concerned, the same may not have a parity in the instant case. In Radha Krishna Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (2021) 6 SCC 771 of the Supreme Court has held that where under an Act the party has an adequate remedy it is then prudent that the party should first exhaust all remedies under that Act and, thereafter, approach the Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. A similar chord has been noticed by the Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd (supra) itself in para-4 of the said report. Accordingly, in view thereof, this Court without entering into merits of the case finds that it is not a fit case where this Court may exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the petition arising out of mutation court which needless to say is a summary proceeding. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse to statutory remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the plea of the petitioners on merits and the petition is being disposed of solely on ground of availability of statutory remedy. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench