HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4253 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 15.9.2026, upholding the order passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sagadi, District Azamgarh, dated 25.6.2026. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mutation application filed by respondent no. 6, on the basis of Will dated 18.4.1983, was allowed by the order dated 21.1.2014, which was upheld upto this Court. However, subsequently, a fresh application has been moved by him, which has been entertained by the Tehsildar and fresh mutation orders have been passed to be carried out in Khatauni of Fasli Year 1426 to Fasli Year 1431. It is contended that the second mutation application was not maintainable on the same grounds, therefore, the order dated 25.6.2026, as upheld by the order dated 15.9.2026, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He has further contended that the respondent no. 2 has manifestly erred in dismissing the revision at the admission stage itself, even though, he was directed by this Court to consider the stay application filed alongwith the revision, which is in teeth of the order of this Court dated 29.7.2026. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbratt Yadav, Kumar Gaurav, Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinav Singh, Anirudh Pratap Singh, C.S.C. Mohammad Rashid .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) contended that no fresh application has been filed by the respondent no. 6 for mutating his name on the basis of Will dated 18.4.1983. The order of Tehsildar, dated 21.1.2014 was affirmed in appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. The order passed in appeal was challenged in revision filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, which was dismissed and the writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders was also disposed of without any interference in the order of mutation passed in favour of respondent no. 6. However, against the order dated 21.1.2014, another revision was filed by one Hari Prasad Prajapati, directly before the Commissioner of the Division, which was decided by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, by the order dated 31.3.2023, in which the order dated 21.1.2014, as modified by the order dated 23.7.2014, was set aside to the effect it related to plot no. 1167 and the matter was relegated back to be decided afresh. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the order impugned was passed by the Tehsildar on 25.6.2026. By the aforesaid order, no fresh mutation has been directed, except for the fact that the earlier order dated 21.1.2014, referred to khata numbers in which the mutation was effected whereas in the order under challenge the plot numbers in the said khatas have been disclosed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The perusal of the order dated 25.6.2026 starts with the reference of the original application moved by the respondent no. 6 on which the order dated 21.1.2014 was passed which was subsequently modified by the order dated 23.7.2014. After narrating the entire history of the dispute relating to mutation over the property held by late Zaki, the Tehsildar has clearly proceeded to observe that the area in plot no. 1167, which was earlier transferred by late Zaki in favour of Hari Prasad, stands to be excluded under the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 31.3.2023 and the remaining area 0.893 hectare shall continue to be recorded in the name of respondent no. 6, probably for this reason in the operative portion the Tehsildar proceeded to disclose all the plot numbers WRIB No. 4253 of 2026 2 of the respective khatas specifying its area over which the name of respondent no. 6 would continue in pursuance of the earlier order dated 21.1.2014 and 23.7.2014. Thus, in my opinion, no fresh determination on a subsequent application moved by the respondent no. 6 has been made as alleged in the present petition. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and unsustainable. 8. Considering the objection of the petitioner in the revision before the respondent no. 2 a categorical finding has been recorded in the order dated 15.9.2026 that the order dated 25.6.2026 has been passed in pursuance of the direction of the Additional Commissioner in its order dated 31.3.2023. The Tehsildar in his order dated 25.6.2026 has categorically observed that the earlier order dated 21.1.2014 and 23.7.2014 shall continue to be operative. In view of the fact that the aforesaid earlier orders have already been upheld by this Court, no fresh cause of action arises for the petitioner to intermeddle with the orders having been passed by the revenue authorities in proceedings under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 9. The writ petition being misconceived is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. September 23, 2026 Ranjeet Sahu WRIB No. 4253 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad