Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43558 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7095 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. On the oral request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to amend the writ petition and permitted to challenge the order dated 01.07.2025 and 02.07.2025. Let necessary incorporations be carried out during course of the day. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 4 had moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for mutation of the property situated at Gata No. 363, area 1.018 hectares situated at Village - Kajipur Bangar, Pargana - Fatehpur Chaurasi, Tehsil - Bangarmau, District - Unnao. 4. Present dispute pertains to family members and the petitioner had appeared in the proceedings and filed his objections, pursuant to which said case was heard and decided on 01.07.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, copy of the said order has been annexed alongwith writ petition, according to which khatauni for year 1426 to 1431 Fasli's khata no. 00042, 00182, 00035, 00330 and 00031 recorded in the name of Smt. Indrani, W/o Mansharam R/o Kajipur Bangar, Pargana - Fatehpur Chaurasi, Tehsil - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, has been directed to be deleted and name of applicant Suresh S/o Mansharam R/o Village - Kajipur Bangar, Pargana - Fatehpur Chaurasi, Tehsil - Bangarmau, District - Unnao has been directed to be mutated in the light of registered sale deed dated 25.07.2007 and directed for mutation proceedings in the revenue records to be carried out. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter stood concluded by means of order dated 01.07.2025, but, respondent no. 3 proceeded to pass another order on the very next date i.e. 02.07.2025, to the same effect except there are certain more details discussed in the subsequent order dated 02.07.2025. It is stated that once matter stood concluded respondent no. 3 became functus officio and could not reopen the proceedings and pass fresh order on 02.07.2025. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 01.07.2025 and 02.07.2025. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but submits that there is no doubt that matter stood decided and concluded by order dated 01.07.2025 and even perusal of order dated 02.07.2025, would indicate that same order has been reiterated except there is change in the language at certain places and previous order has not been substantially altered. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Undoubtedly, respondent no. 3 acted as an authority deciding case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, who is duty bound to act in quasi judicial manner. He was considering application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, preferred by private respondent and same was allowed on 01.07.2025, rejecting all the objections raised by the petitioner. 10. Once final decision has been rendered, then respondent no. 3 became functus officio, then in absence of any application he could not have proceeded to re-hear and pass fresh order on subsequent date. 11. Accordingly, order dated 02.07.2025, is unauthorised, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled provisions of judicial proprietory, and accordingly, order dated 02.07.2025, is set aside. 12. Writ petition is partly allowed. 13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has also made complaint before the Board of Revenue about the manner in which respondent no. 3 has discharged his duties. Hence, the Board of Revenue is directed to consider the complaint and pass appropriate orders. 14. The petitioner would be at liberty to assail order dated 01.07.2025, in case he so chooses, before the appropriate forum. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench