HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27754 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Kaushal Kishor Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of sale deed executed by respondent no. 9 in the year 2008, the order for mutation was passed by the mutation Court on 17.12.2008 in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8. Against the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the mutation Court, restoration application has been filed by the petitioner with an inordinate delay. The mutation Court has allowed the restoration application and restored the mutation case for fresh decision. Mutation Court heard the matter afresh & maintained the order of mutation passed in the year 2008. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed vide orders dated 30.09.2022/07.03.2026. Hence, this petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner for following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Additional Commissioner (Administration), Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Case No.1464/2022 (Computerized Case No.C202209000001464) "Rahul vs. Tejpal Singh and Others", under Section-210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Sub Divisional Officer, Budhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar) in Case No.3288/2002 Computerized Case No.T202209550303288) Rahul Vs Tejpal Singh and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani Rahul .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) Others", u/s-35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and impugned order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3 (Tehsildar (Judicial), Budhana, District-Muzaffar Nagar) in Case No.RST/712/2008-2009 (Computerized Case No.T201809550300217) "Yogendra and Tejpal vs. Smt. Vimlesh", under Section-34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. (ii) Any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of writ petition to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale deed executed by the recorded owner was illegal, as such mutation order cannot be passed by the mutation Court. He further submitted that mutation order has been passed by Naib Tehsildar on the ground that the sale deed in question has not been cancelled by any competent Court of law, as such there is no illegality in the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the mutation Court. He next submitted that mutation order has been illegally maintained in appeal and revision, as such all the three orders should be set aside and the mutation case filed on the basis of illegal sale deed should be rejected. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that, on the basis of sale deed dated 10.06.2008 the mutation Court has passed the order of mutation in the year 2008, which has been again maintained vide subsequent order dated 13.06.2022. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal as well as the revision filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed vide orders dated 30.09.2022/07.03.2026. 6. It is material to mention that on the basis of sale deed executed by respondent no. 9 (petitioner's mother), a mutation order dated 17.12.2008 was passed by the mutation Court, as such the filing of restoration application after about 9 year to recall the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 is total abuse of the process of law, although mutation Court has allowed the restoration application, but after hearing the parties again WRIC No. 27754 of 2026 2 maintained the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 recording finding that sale-deed was executed by petitioner's mother as guardian of petitioner and petitioner's father was witness of the sale-deed.. 7. It is settled principle of law that orders passed in summary proceeding for mutation are always subject to adjudication of dispute, if any, by regular Court, as such filing of recall/restoration application after 9 year before mutation Court as well as appeal/revision can not be entertained. 8. There is no illegality or infirmity in the mutation order dated 17.12.2008 as well as 13.06.2022. 9. No interference is required against the mutation order passed in the summary proceeding. 10. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. September 8, 2026 Neetu WRIC No. 27754 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad