# Dalbir & Ors v. Board Of Revenue & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 502 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-03-16 - **Case number:** Writ B No. 1379 of 2025 - **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dalbir-ors-v-board-of-revenue-ors-54721 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 29. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the order of punishment dated 30.05.2022 cannot be sustained for the reason that the respondents reply dated 18.11.2021 to the show-cause notice has not been considered at all and for the said reason, it can be said that the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated at the stage of passing of the punishment order dated 30.05.2022. At the same time, we hold that the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal to the extent that the disciplinary proceedings could not have been continued beyond the timeline fixed by the Writ Court while passing the judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.21920 (SS) of 2021, wherein a direction was issued to the competent authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings within two months, is not sustainable as we have already held while deciding the aforesaid charge no.1. 30. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed and the judgment and order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition No.1708 of 2022 Anshul Jagannath vs. State of U.P. and another is modified to the extent that liberty is granted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of punishment after taking into consideration the reply dated 18.11.2021 submitted by the respondent to the show-cause notice dated 29.10.2021 issued to him. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 31. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 502 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. Writ B No. 1379 of 2025 Dalbir & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Board Of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether mutation application filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour should be allowed? (b) Whether mutation can be kept pending for unlimited period? Headnotes A. Land Reform Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 229-B; U.P. Revenue Code: Section 35(2), 210 - Substantial delay in initiating the proceeding for mutation on the basis of will deed, creates doubt about the will deed. Suit for declaration u/s 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the predecessor of private respondents on the basis of adverse possession, was dismissed by the trial court and the judgment and decree has attained 3 All. Dalbir & Ors. Vs. Board Of Revenue & Ors. 503 finality, as such, filing of mutation application on the basis of sale deed, alleged to be executed about 45 years before, cannot be allowed in any manner. (Para 10) B. Mutation matter cannot be kept pending for unlimited period rather the order should be given finality so that parties can adjudicate the matter before the regular court. (Para 12) The S.D.O. has rightly allowed the appeal of the petitioners, setting aside the order of the mutation passed by the Tehsildar but the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter before the S.D.O. to decide the mutation appeal afresh which is abuse of process of law. (Para 11) In the instant matter, the suit for declaration u/s 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by private respondents has already been dismissed, as such, impugned judgment/order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law. (Para 13) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Case Law Cited 1. Zakir Hasan and Others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and Others, 2024 (163) RD 87 (Para 5) 2. Sita Ram Vs. Bharat Singh, 2019 (10) SCC 412 (Para 5) 3. Hemlatha Vs. Tekaram, Order dated 22.1.2026, passed in Civil Appeal No.6640 of 2010 (Para 5) 4. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue, 2022 (4) ADJ 578 (Para 5) 5. Ram Kishan Vs. Board of Revenue, 2016 (131) RD 52 (Para 5) 6. Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Kanpur Development Authority, 2013 (121) RD 812 (Para 5) 7. Shyam Vilas Verma Vs. Additional Commissioner, 2020 (147) RD 711 (Para 5) 8. Krishna Bihari Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and Others, 2017 (134) RD 563 (Para 5) 9. Ram Nath Vs. Smt. Munna, 1976 RD 220 (FB) (Para 5) 10. Gagan Mishra Vs. State of U.P., 2024 (164) RD 232 (Para 5) 11. Shardul Ranjan and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, 2015 (129) RD 495 (Para 9) List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; List of Keywords mutation, limitation, will deed, substantial delay, abuse, declaration, revenue. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Atipriya Gautam, Ishir Sripat, Prashant Kumar Tripathi, Sr. Advocate For Respondent(s): Kartikeya Saran, Bhola Nath Yadav, C.S.C., Kamal Krishna Roy, Kamal Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Sunil Kumar Singh (Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.7, 8, 9 & 10, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Nathu Singh, predecessor of the petitioners, was recorded over plot nos.1246M, 1249, 1256 of khata no.538, total area 8.4270 hect. Sri Nathu Singh has died on 10.1.1968. In place of Nathu Singh, name of petitioners and other family members were recorded on the basis of succession. A suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. 504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Act") was filed in the year 2012 by the legal heirs of one Todi Singh (father of respondent no.7) with the prayer that they may be declared co-sharer of share of the plot in question. The aforementioned suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.5.2016. Against the dismissal of suit, one appeal was filed before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.4.2019 which has attained finality. Respondent No.19/Sanjay moved an application for mutation on 24.6.2016 on the basis of photocopy of the sale deed dated 18.2.1970, alleged to be executed by Sri Nathu Singh in his favour. The aforementioned mutation application was dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 12.4.2018. Other private respondents except respondent no.19 who were plaintiffs of suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act also filed a mutation application dated 18.7.2017 on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 27.2.1968 by Sri Nathu Singh which was registered as Mutation Case No.3143/2018. The Tehsildar vide order dated 24.1.2019 allowed the Mutation Case No.3143/2018. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 1.2.2019, petitioners and other co-sharers filed appeal under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 27.8.2019, setting aside the order dated 24.1.2019, passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order of the S.D.O. dated 27.8.2019, respondent nos.17 and 18 along with their mother Smt. Rajeshwati filed two revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Commissioner. The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Additional Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2020. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.3.2020, time barred restoration application was filed which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2022. Against the orders dated 18.3.2020 and 9.11.2022, respondent nos. 7 to 10 filed revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed under the impugned order dated 2.4.2025, setting aside the order of the S.D.O. and the Additional Commissioner as well as matter was sent back before S.D.M. to decide the appeal afresh. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:- "Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 2.4.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed in Revision No.228/2023, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by the Hon'bnle Board of Revenue at Prayagraj" 3. This Court entertained the matter on 15.4.2025 and stayed the further proceeding before the S.D.M. In pursuance of the order of this Court, parties have exchanged their pleadings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that filing of mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 after more than 45 years is total abuse of the process of law. He submitted that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the private respondents on the basis of possession was dismissed, as such, filing of mutation application on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed about 45 years before, cannot be entertained and allowed by the court, exercising the summary jurisdiction. He submitted that the S.D.O. has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, setting aside the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar on the basis of sale deed executed about 45 years before. He submitted that the Additional Commissioner has rightly dismissed the revision filed by the private respondents but the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the private respondents and remanded the matter in the court of S.D.O. to decide the appeal afresh which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that after dismissal of suit under Section 229-B of 3 All. Dalbir & Ors. Vs. Board Of Revenue & Ors. 505 the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act by the revenue court, the mutation application filed after more than 45 years from the date of execution of the alleged sale deed, cannot be entertained. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue should be set aside and the order passed by the S.D.O. and the Additional Commissioner be maintained. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue in the mutation proceeding. It is further submitted that under the impugned order, the S.D.O. will decide the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, as such, no interference is required in the matter. He further submitted that there is no limitation of filing of mutation application, as such, there is no illegality in initiating the proceeding of mutation on the basis of sale deed executed in favour of the party concerned. He further submitted that the writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceeding should not be entertained. He placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and that of this Court in support of his arguments:- "1. 2024 (163) RD 87, Zakir Hasan and Others vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and Others; 2. 2019 (10) SCC 412, Sita Ram vs. Bharat Singh; 3. Order dated 22.1.2026, passed in Civil Appeal No.6640 of 2010, Hemlatha vs. Tekaram; 4. 2022 (4) ADJ 578, Kalawati vs. Board of Revenue; 5. 2016 (131) RD 52, Ram Kishan vs. Board of Revenue; 6. 2013 (121) RD 812, Chanakyapuri Cooperative Housing Society vs. Kanpur Development Authority; 7. 2020 (147) RD 711, Shyam Vilas Verma vs. Additional Commissioner; 8. 2017 (134) RD 563; Krishna Bihari vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and Others; 9. 1976 RD 220 (FB), Ram Nath vs. Smt. Munna; 10. 2024 (164) RD 232, Gagan Mishra vs. State of U.P." 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that mutation applications filed in the years 2016 and 2019 by the private respondents on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in the years 506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1968/1970, have been allowed by the Tehsildar but in appeal filed by the petitioners, the order of mutation has been set aside. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by the private respondents was dismissed by Additional Commissioner but the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and remanded the matter back before the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the appeal afresh. 8. It is material to mention that mutation application have been filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour which should not be allowed although there is no limitation for filing the mutation application but the filing of mutation application after more than 45 years, creates doubt about the document in question. 9. This Court in the case reported in 2015 (129) RD 495, Shardul Ranjan and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others has held that substantial delay in initiating the proceeding for mutation on the basis of will deed, creates doubt about the will deed. Paragraph no.10 of the judgment will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "10. Even if the version of the petitioners that Smt. Chiraita Devi died on 23.5.2003, is accepted then also from their own evidence, the Will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances namely (i) The death of executor of the will occurred within a week of the execution of the Will, (ii) The executor was of 90 years old and was seriously ill and she was not in condition even to sit on cot. According to statement of petitioner-2, she was ill at that time for about three months. There is no evidence to show that she was in fit mental condition and executed the Will out of her own free will, without any coercion and undue influence, (iii) From the statement of the witnesses of the petitioners, it was proved that the propounders of the Will had taken active part in execution of the Will inasmuch as he obtained stamp paper on which the Will was executed, called scribe and attesting witnesses of the Will, (iv) If Smt. Chiraita Devi could be taken on car for her treatment, she could have gone to Sub-Registrar Office for registration of the Will (v) Smt. Kamla in her statement has stated that photo affixed on the Will dated 16.5.2003 was not photo of her mother Smt. Chiraita rather it was photo of wife of Suryabali and consolidation authorities found that photo affixed on the Will was not of a ill lady of 90 years old and (vi) Smt. Chiraita Devi died on 23.5.2003 but claim on its basis has been set up by the petitioners on 29.2.2008 i.e. about five years of her death on the basis of unregistered Will. Although no limitation has been provided for mutation but in the case of inheritance on the basis of unregistered Will, delay in disclosing the Will itself create a doubt in respect of its genuineness. In these circumstances the Will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the propounders have failed to explain suspicious circumstances. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimbajamtna, MANU/SC/0115/1958MANU/SC/0115/1958 : AIR 1959 SC 443. S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, MANU/SC/0285/2010MANU/SC/0285/2010 : 2010 (111) RD 675 (SC) and M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje, MANU/SC/0462/2013MANU/SC/0462/2013 : 2013 (120) RD 438 (SC) held that in case, the propounder has taken active part in execution of the Will, then it create a suspicious circumstance." 3 All. Civil Court Bar Association & Anr. Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 507 10. It is also material to mention that suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by the predecessor of private respondents on the basis of adverse possession, was dismissed by the trial court and the judgment and decree has attained finality, as such, filing of mutation application on the basis of sale deed, alleged to be executed about 45 years before, cannot be allowed in any manner. 11. The S.D.O. has rightly allowed the appeal of the petitioners, setting aside the order of the mutation passed by the Tehsildar but the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter before the S.D.O. to decide the mutation appeal afresh which is abuse of process of law. 12. Mutation matter cannot be kept pending for unlimited period rather the order should be given finality so that parties can adjudicate the matter before the regular court. 13. In the instant matter, the suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by private respondents has already been dismissed, as such, impugned judgment/order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional judgment and order dated 2.4.2025, passed by the respondent no.1/ Board of Revenue in Revision No.228/2023, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 27.8.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is hereby maintained. 16. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 3 ILRA 507 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. Writ C No. 37 of 2026 alongwith Writ C No. 42218 of 2025 Civil Court Bar Association & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration (a) Whether an order passed under a statutory provision can be assailed without challenging the validity or vires of the provision under which such order has been made, and