HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7113 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Yogesh Kr. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2 The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the State-respondents to comply with the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by Collector/District Record Officer, Ayodhya and to record the name of the petitioners in the revenue record against the lands of Late Sri Ram Lakhan Yadav. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that an application was given to Collector, Faizabad who it seems that conducted an inquiry and by means of order dated 11.01.2017 has directed the recording of the name of the petitioners as the successors of Late Ram Lakhan Yadav. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. 5. He has submitted that as per the instructions received, no proceedings were conduced for mutation by the competent authority and even the order dated 11.01.2017 has not been found in the records. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, it is noticed that merely on the basis Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogendra Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Ravi Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Puneet Yadav And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) of some application making allegations for forgery and fraud some inquiries were conducted by District Magistrate and as per the order dated 11.01.2017, he has directed the name of the petitioner to be recorded in the revenue records. It is noticed that no proceedings were ever conducted or notices were issued to any person and only on hearing the learned counsel for petitioner the order dated 11.01.2017 has been passed. 7. It is further noticed that the power exists in the competent authority with regard to proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code for mutation in the revenue records which can be conducted only after a proper application is filed which is duly registered and a computerized number is issued and notices are issued to all the concerned persons. It is only after hearing all the parties concerned that an order U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code is passed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel in any case has informed this Court that no case has been registered at the behest of the petitioner and the order annexed by the petitioner has not been found existing in the records of the State-respondents. Accordingly, no writ can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner to comply with the order dated 11.01.2017. 9. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India can issue a writ of mandamus to the State Governments and its authorities if they fail to comply in discharge of the legal duties assigned to them.The order dated 11.01.2017 seems to be a mere administrative order and even the District Magistrate could not have gone to the extent of passing a direction in such proceedings to record name of any individual. The competent authority in this regard is only the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and not the District Magistrate and consequently the impugned order in any case is beyond jurisdiction of the Collector and therefore this Court would not direct compliance with any order which does not have a colour of legality. 10. Needless to say that the petitioner can move an appropriate application for mutation of his name in the revenue records which if files will be duly considered in accordance with law by the concerned authorities A227 No. 7113 of 2025 2 11. In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground for interference as prayed by the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed . December 12, 2025 Ravi/ A227 No. 7113 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench