Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119382 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23470 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avni Chauhan (Minor) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Harsh Vikram And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23481 of 2025 Petitioner :- Avni Chauhan (Minor) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Harsh Vikram Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed on behalf of minor girl through Smt. Omvati, i.e. her grandmother. 2. The orders impugned in these writ petitions have been passed on a challenge laid by the petitioner to revenue entries existing in the name of Aruna Kumari, i.e. mother of the minor petitioner and also disputing execution of a sale by mother. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Aruna Kumari was married to Avanish Kumar Chauhan and, after his death, she performed remarriage with Abhay Kumar Chauhan. The share of minor has been entered in the revenue record in her name through her mother i.e. Aruna Kumari. 4. The petitioner's case is that, in 2024 Aruna Kumari has executed a sale deed in favour of Vishakha- respondent no. 5 in Writ Petition No. 23481 of 2025 and when the petitioner agitated the grievance that the share of the minor could not be sold without seeking permission of the court or without the mother having been appointed as guardian, neither the sale is valid nor the revenue entries existing in the name of petitioner through her mother are valid and, therefore, all the courts/authorities have illegally rejected objections raised by the petitioner, by the orders impugned in the writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Smt. Bai vs Smt. Nirmala and others; 2011(10) ADJ 691 decided on 26.09.2011 and in Dharam Pal vs. Iind A.D.J., Basti and others; 2005(2) AWC 1673 decided on 23.09.2004 and submits that execution of sale by mother without obtaining prior permission in relation to the share of minor is invalid. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that proceedings giving rise to the writ petition, being summary in nature, none of the writ petitions are maintainable. 7. The Court has carefully gone through the record of proceedings, which reveals that entry in the revenue record is in the name of minor herself through her mother Aruna Kumari. There is no dispute about the fact that the mother being natural guardian of minor girl aged about 4 years and there being no other order having been passed by any court of law, whereby any other person or the petitioner- Smt. Omwati has been appointed as guardian, the Court does not find any error in maintenance of revenue entries in the name of minor daughter represented through her mother (natural guardian). 8. As far as challenge to the sale deed of 2024 executed in favour of Vishakha is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has instituted a civil suit, being Suit No. 132 of 2024 before the Civil Court and whatever claim regarding alleged invalid sale for any reason whatsoever is being raised before this Court, the same being beyond jurisdiction of this Court at this stage, no comment can be made in this regard and the civil court shall take care of the same in accordance with law. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons and reserving all rights of the petitioner- Smt Omwati which she may raise before the civil court, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Pkb/ Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad