HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 5064 of 2025 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Shivanand Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property in question belongs to one Champa, who executed a sale deed dated 11.06.1976 in favour of petitioner. After execution of aforesaid sale deed, Champa filed a suit for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed, which was decreed by the judgment dated 29.08.1978. Subsequently, she executed sale deed dated 27.08.1990 of the property in question in favour of contesting respondents during pendency of the second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.08.1978. On the basis of compromise having been entered between the petitioner and Champa, a decree was passed on 31.08.2007, dismissing the original suit filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.06.1976. On the basis of aforesaid compromise judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, the petitioner moved an application for getting her name recorded over the property in question, which was allowed by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 21.08.2019. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the contesting respondents filed revision before the Commissioner of the Division, which was allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dated 12.01.2021. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.01.2021 in revision before the Board of Revenue, the respondent no.2, which has been dismissed by the order dated 04.11.2025. The present petition has been filed challenging the orders of respondent nos.2 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivanand Mishra Smt Maya Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 19 Others .....Respondent(s) and 3 dated 04.11.2025 and 12.01.2021, respectively. 3. Perusal of order dated 12.01.2021 shows that it is an order of remand directing the Naib Tahsildar to decide the issue again after hearing contesting respondents, who were recorded over the property in question being subsequent tranferees. The respondent no.3 while allowing the revision of the contesting respondents has observed that against the order dated 13.04.2005, by which their names were recorded over the land in question, a restoration application filed by the petitioner was already pending, therefore, fresh case could not have been registered on the basis of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007. The Board of Revenue has upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner already has a remedy to argue her case before Naib Tahsildar as nothing has been decided on merits by the Additional Commissioner and the entire controversy is still open for consideration. 4. Having perused the aforesaid order, I find that the order of mutation dated 13.04.2005, passed on the application of the contesting respondents, pursuant to sale deed dated 27.08.1990, was required to be set aside before any fresh order of mutation is passed on the basis of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007. In such circumstances, no interference is required with the orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3, under challenge, at this stage. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.4 - Naib Tahsildar, Nagar, District Etawah to decide the pending proceedings in pursuance of the order of Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dated 12.01.2021, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsels for the parties undertake that the parties shall cooperate with the hearing of proceedings pending before the concerned Naib Tahsildar. April 20, 2026 Ashok Kr. WRIB No. 5064 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad