HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 30444 of 2026 Court No. - 37 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Satvik Jain, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation proceeding under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was decided by the Tehsildar vide order dated 27.9.2022, directing to record the name of the private respondent nos. 4 to 9 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.5.2012 in the place of Smt. Phulabeti daughter of Feran Singh and her legal heirs. Appeal under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order of mutation was dismissed by the Additional Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.9.2024. Revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2026. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Revision No. 1270 of 2024 (Bhagwan Singh Vs. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Deepak Gaur Bhagwan Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) Ahmad Khan and Others) (Computerized Case No.C202406000001270) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; the impugned order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, First, Lalitpur in Appeal No.1393 of 2022 (Bhagwan Singh Vs. Ahmad Khan and Others) (Computerized Case No.D202206450001393) under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Lalitpur, Lalitpur in Case No.963 of 2019 Mohd. Rahish Khan Vs. Phoolabeti) (Computerized Case No.T201906450100963) under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure Nos.8, 7 and 4 to the writ petition)." 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mutation court has illegally passed the order for recording the name of private respondent on the basis of sale deed which cannot be relied upon. He submitted that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed in question, is pending before the civil court, as such, mutation court cannot decide the issue relating to title in respect to the plot in question. He submitted that till the disposal of the civil suit in respect to the sale deed in question, the order passed in the mutation proceeding by the mutation court, should be kept in abeyance. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state- respondents and learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha submitted that all the three courts have passed the order for recording the name of the private respondents on the basis of registered sale deed, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that sale deed in question has been challenged in civil suit, as such, the petitioner should contest the proceeding of civil suit rather mutation proceeding which has been finalized by all the three courts. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the state and perused the records. WRIC No. 30444 of 2026 2 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the order for mutation was passed on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of private respondents. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have also been dismissed by the appellate as well as revisional court. 7. The mutation order passed by the Tehsildar demonstrate that there is proper exercise of jurisdiction by the mutation court for recording the name of the vendees in pursuance of the registered sale deed in question. 8. It is also material to mention that civil suit for cancellation of sale deed in question, is pending before the civil court, as such, petitioner should pursue the remedy before the civil court in proper manner. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders passed in the mutation proceeding. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that order passed in the mutation proceeding shall be subject to adjudication of dispute by the civil court in the pending civil suit for cancellation of sale deed in question. September 21, 2026 C.Prakash WRIC No. 30444 of 2026 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad