HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30373 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Dayal Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated at the instance of private respondent no.4 on the basis of registered will deed dated 21.2.2009. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 11.12.2024 decided the aforementioned mutation case directing to record the name of private respondent no.4 on the basis of registered will deed dated 21.2.2009 in place of deceased father Shah Ali. Against the order of Naib Tehsildar dated 11.12.2024, appeal under Section 35 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer with the prayer that mutation order should be set aside and the name of both the sons of deceased should be recorded over the plot in question. Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 25.9.2025 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Against the appellate order, revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed on behalf of the petitioner which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 29.5.2026 hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayub Khan, Shaikh Mohd Mujib Ur Rahman Counsel for Respondent(s) : Balram Mishra, C.S.C., Shiv Dayal Tiwari Mohammad Tahir .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner (Administration) Basti Division And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 29.05.2026 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 25.09.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by respondent no.3, in the interest of justice. ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature or mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners exist over the land in dispute during the pendency of the writ petition." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner as well as private respondent no.4 are entitled to be recorded after death of their father- Shah Ali on the basis of succession. He submitted that will deed alleged to be executed in favour of private respondent no.4 has not been proved in accordance with law, as such, the private respondent no.4 cannot be recorded on the basis of will deed in question. He submitted that appeal as well as revision filed on behalf of the petitioner have been dismissed in illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that on the basis of pendency of civil suit filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of will deed in question, the mutation proceeding cannot be decided in arbitrary manner. He submitted that writ petition should be allowed on the ground of set up in the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that Tehsildar has recorded proper finding for recording the name of private respondent no.4 on the basis of registered will deed in question. He further submitted that will deed in question has been proved according to the provisions contained under the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act, as such, no interference is required against the order of mutation. He submitted that even civil suit for cancellation of will deed filed by petitioner has been dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration application filed against the dismissal of suit is pending, as such, petitioner should pursue the remedy before the Civil Court rather before the mutation Court for unlimited period. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the WRIC No. 30373 of 2026 2 parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that order for mutation was passed by Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the basis of registered will deed in favour of private respondent no.4. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal and revision filed by petitioner have been dismissed by the appellate Court/ revisional Court. 7. It is material to mention that Naib Tehsildar has passed the order of mutation on the basis of registered will deed executed in favour of private respondent no.4 considering the evidence on record recording finding that will deed has been proved in accordance with law. 8. In view of the finding recorded by Naib Tehsildar, which has been confirmed in appeal as well as revision, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere against the mutation orders passed in the summary proceeding. 9. It is also material to mention that civil suit filed by petitioner for cancellation of will deed in question has been dismissed in default and restoration application filed by petitioner is pending before the Civil Court, as such, petitioner should pursue his remedy before the Civil Court rather before this Court by way of writ petition against the orders passed in mutation proceeding which are summary in nature. 10. No interference is required in the matter. 11. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that order passed in the mutation proceeding shall be subject to adjudication of dispute, if any, by the Civil Court. September 21, 2026 Vandana Y. WRIC No. 30373 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad