Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132911 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26341 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anara Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This case has a long chequered history. One Lotau alias Lotau Ram was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. He unfortunately died on 26.06.2022. An application was moved by his widow/petitioner under Section 33(1) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for getting her name mutated in the revenue records. After the report of Revenue Inspector, the name of the petitioner along with her married daughter was recorded on 01.08.2022. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for setting aside the order dated 01.08.2022 and allowing the mutation application for recording her name only in place of Lotau alias Lotau Ram. The said application was allowed on 22.03.2024 and her name was mutated without mutating the name of married daughter. 3. Respondent No.4 Pushpa Devi the married daughter of the petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for recalling the said order. The application under Section 209(h) was allowed and the order passed earlier was set aside. The petitioner thereafter preferred a restoration application under Section 209(h) for restoring the original order and setting aside the order passed on the restoration application of her daughter Pushpa Devi. In the meantime, the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of Dinesh Chauhan on 08.06.2024. On 27.05.2025, the restoration application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the case was restored to its original number. 4. The respondent No.4 during pendency of the application under Section 34 had moved an application for restraining the petitioner to transfer the property in dispute being an old lady. On 18.06.2025, an interim order was passed restraining the petitioner for making any transfer during pendency of the mutation application. 5. The petitioner before this Court has challenged the order setting aside the stay of transfer of the property during pendency of the mutation application. 6. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. No case for interference is made out as the mutation application is still pending consideration. The argument raised by the petitioner that the order allowing mutation application is totally misconceived as only the restoration application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the matter has been restored back. Once the mutation application is pending, no case for interference is made out. 8. The revenue officials are hereby directed to proceed with the mutation application and take a final call within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. Writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad