Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34668 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 856 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Ram Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Up At Allahabad And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhiuday Mehrotra,Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjai Singh,Yadvendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing and Mr. Abhiuday Mehrotra, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Verma learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar in case No. 49 of 2017 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 vide order dated 6.2.2023/ 8.1.2024 directed to record the name of respondent no.4 on the basis of registered sale deed executed on 3.1.2017 in favour of respondent no.4. Appeal under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by petitioner was dismissed on 10.6.2024 and revision under Section 210 filed by petitioner was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 24.12.2024. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the following orders:- (a) The order dated 8.1.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Jakhanian/ respondent no.3 in case No. 3474 of 2023 (Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. Vidhyapati) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (b) The order dated 10.6.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM)/ respondent no.2 in appeal/ case No. 1171 of 2024 (Surendra Vs. Sanjay) under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (c) The order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Revenue of Board/ respondent no.1 in case No. REV/2712/2024/ Ghazipur under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the parties not to create third party rights over the properties in dispute during the pendency of the present case or till the decision in the original suit No. 187 of 2017 (Surendra Prasad Ram Vs. Kamlapati and another) for cancellation of the sale deed is finally decided otherwise the petitioner shall suffer grave and irreparable harm and damage. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the revenue authorities to record the name of the petitioner over the plots in dispute." 3. There is also no dispute about the fact that civil suit No. 187 of 2017 filed by petitioners in respect to sale deed in question is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghazipur. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer, Board of Revenue have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that pleadings set up in the proceeding have not been considered in proper manner while rejecting the objection of the petitioner raised before the Tehsildar in the mutation proceeding. He submitted that civil suit filed by petitioner as original suit No. 187 of 2017 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Ghazipur in which initially interim injunction was granted. He submitted that impugned order passed by revenue authorities should be set aside and matter should be sent back for fresh disposal of the proceeding considering the objection of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the revenue authorities in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submitted that jurisdiction has been properly exercised by the revenue authorities. He submitted that civil suit by petitioner is pending, as such, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been decided by the Tehsildar in favour of contesting respondents and appeal as well as revision filed by petitioner have been dismissed under the impugned order. There is also no dispute about the fact that civil suit filed by petitioner as suit No. 187 of 2017 for sale deed in question is pending before the Civil Court. 7. Since civil suit No. 187 of 2017 filed by petitioner in respect to sale deed dated 3.1.2017 is pending before Civil Court, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order for mutation passed by Tehsildar which has been maintained in appeal and revision. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the pendency of civil suit in respect to sale deed executed in favour of contesting respondents, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in mutation proceeding. The writ petition is disposed of with observation that pending civil suit shall be decided by Civil Court on its own merit without affecting by the impugned orders passed under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the order passed in the instant petition. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad