Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47149 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7558 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bachchraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged order dated 10.2.2025 passed by Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich in proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is son of Harishchandra, who was the tenure holder and died on 26.12.2022. It is on death of his father that he moved an application and submitted all the documents which indicates that he is the son of Harishchandra. In the said proceedings the reports of Area Lekhpal was also filed according to which after the version of the villagers was taken it was found that the petitioner is not sun of Harischandra but son of sister of wife of Harischandra and subsequently was adopted by Harischandra. The Tehsildar did not rely upon the document filed by the petitioner but relied on the report submitted by Regional Lekhpal and rejected the application for mutation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has overwhelming evidence available on record which indicated that he is the son of Harischandra but he submits that there was no rival claimant and accordingly the respondents have illegally rejected the application for mutation. 5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has equally efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the writ petition submits that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction in as much as the Tehsildar has not passed the order relying upon the evidence filed by the petitioner pertaining to the fact that he is the son of deceased tenure holder. 7. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the Tehsildar has passed a detailed order considering the submissions on behalf of the petitioner as well as the objection and report submitted by Regional Lekhpal. He has relied upon the report of Regional Lekhpal where the statement of Gram Pradhan were recorded to the effect that the petitioner is not real son of Harischandra. Even the claim of the petitioner that he was adopted by Harischandra could not be proved in any document submitted by him. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the Tehsildar has adequately considered the documents and recorded the statements made before him and rejected teh contentions of the petitioner. 8. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal but we hasten to add that we do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Tehsildar while deciding the application under Section 34. Apart from the above, the issue pertaining to mutation merely pertains to correction of revenue records and does not extend to title proceedings where rights of the petitioner in the property is determined by the said proceedings. In case, the petitioner seeks a declaration in the disputed property then it will be open for him to file a suit before competent court of civil jurisdiction and seek declaration and also move an application for injunction in case certain persons are interfering with his possession. 9. Accordingly, we find that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing counsel has force. The petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious and alternate remedy. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and the appellate court will decide the appeal on its own without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and on the basis of the material which may be filed by the concerned parties. 11. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench