# Gangaram Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 695
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41243 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gangaram-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52969
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

12 All. Gangaram Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
eligibility claimed and there was no 'Kurra'
prepared, the partition by metes and
bounds was not visible to I.O.C.L. Merely
because there may not survive any dispute
between Mahendra Singh and his cosharers on the strength of some private
partition held, in absence of public
recognition granted in law, either through
the order of the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, and/or through appropriate
revenue entries, the IOCL may have
remained within its rights not to recognize
and/or act on such developments as may
have involved alteration of its own position
viz-a-viz the proposed Retail Outlet.

17. In matters of contract, the
Writ Court may leave it open to the
contracting parties to act in the manner
they may deem fit. Insofar as the action of
the IOCL is not seen to be plainly arbitrary
and/or unreasoned, we are not inclined to
offer any interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to reverse the
commercial decision of the IOCL - to not
enter into the contract with the petitioner.

18. In view of that reason arising,
we are not inclined to act on the otherwise
sustainable ground of challenge that the
order
impugned
is
non-speaking.
Intervention if made, on that count would
only result in an academic exercise.

19. In view of the above, writ
petition lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs."

18. This matter is more identical to the
present dispute in which date of filing of
application is 25.9.2023 whereas an order
was passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer on 11.2.2023, the basis of fulfilling
the land norms. Ultimately, the status of said
land
was
finalized
vide
order
dated
20.12.2023 for preparation of Kurra in terms
of settlement and compromise earlier agreed
between the parties on 11.2.2023, but Court
has held that it was finalized only after date
of application on 25.9.2023, therefore, same
cannot be taken into account for allotment of
retail outlet and accordingly dismissed the
petition.

19.
The
controversy
involved
hereinabove is identical controversy to the
present case, therefore, ratio of law of this
judgment referred hereinabove shall also be
applicable in the present case.

20. Therefore, in light of facts of the
case, provisions of law and judgment of this
Court, Court is of the firm view that in case
of joint ownership of land, consents of all cosharers are required and further to establish
the partition preliminary decree is not
sufficient and a final decree is required along
with application in terms of Sections 116 &
117 of the Code, 2006 read with Rule 108 &
109 of Rules 2016. The Court finds no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
and is liable to be dismissed.

21. Writ Petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 695
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 41243 of 2025

Gangaram Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue is whether a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable against orders passed in mutation
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings when a civil suit involving the same
title dispute is already pending.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006-Sections 34, 35,
35(2), 39, 210-The court followed the
principles established in the Kalawati
case-mutation proceedings are purely for
fiscal purposes and do not create or
extinguish substantive property rightswrit petitions under Article 226 are
generally
not
maintainable
against
mutation orders because an efficacious
remedy (a civil title suit) is availableRevenue entries have no evidentiary value
regarding ownership and are always
subject
to
the
final
decision
of
a
competent
civil
court-writ
petition
dismissed.(Para 6 to 11) (E-6)

Held
The court refused to interfere because the
disputes involves complex questions of Hindu
undivided family law and the validity of a will,
which require a full trial with evidence not a
summary writ hearing.

Case law Cited
Smt. Kalawati Vs The Board of Revenue-referred
to.
List of Acts
Constitution
of
India,1950,
U.P.
Revenue
Code,2006

List of Keywords
Mutation proceedings, Summary jurisdiction,
fiscal purpose, title disputes, registered sale
deed, registered will.

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction- WRIT-C No. - 41243 of 2025

Gangaram Mishra Vs.State of U.P. & 6 Ors

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for parties
Adv, for Petitioner:-
Ram Prakash
Adv.for Respondent:-
Ashutosh Pandey, C.S.C

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J N
Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel
appearing along with Sri Dinesh Kumar
Tiwari, for the State-respondents and Sri
Puneet Kumar Upadhyay, holding brief of
Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India,
challenging
the
orders
dated
18.10.2021 and 05.02.2024 passed by the
Tehsildar/Respondent
no.5,
Tehsil
Bhanpur,
District
Basti,
in
Case
No.00335/2016 (Sushila vs. Gangaram),
under Section 34 of the U P Revenue Code,
20061,
the
appellate
order
dated
18.07.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate/Respondent no. 4, Bhanpur, in
Case No. 603/2024 (Gangaram Mishra vs.
Smt. Sushila Devi and others) under
Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006, and the
revisional order dated 04.10.2025 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration)/Respondent no. 3, Basti
Region, in Case No. 1052/2024 (Gangaram
Mishra vs. Sushila Devi) under Section 210
of the Code, 2006.

3. The dispute pertains to agricultural
land situated at Village Chhitirgavan,
Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, which is
admittedly joint family property. The
factual background of the case, as reflected
from the pleadings, is set out hereinbelow:

3.1 On 25.07.2016, the petitioner's
brother, Tulsi Ram is stated to have
12 All. Gangaram Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
executed a registered sale deed in favour of
respondent
no.6,
Sushila
Devi.
The
petitioner claims that the transfer was made
in excess of the vendor's undivided share
and without prior partition.

3.2 On the same date, the petitioner's
mother is stated to have executed a
registered Will in favour of the petitioner.
Mutation
proceedings
were
thereafter
initiated on the basis of the sale deed.

3.3
By
order dated
18.10.2021,
mutation was allowed in favour of
respondent no.6. The petitioner filed a
recall
application
and
objections.
Subsequently, by order dated 05.02.2024,
the Tehsildar reaffirmed the mutation entry.

3.4 The appeal preferred by the
petitioner under Section 35(2) of the Code
was dismissed on 18.07.2024, and the
revision under Section 210 of the Code was
dismissed on 04.10.2025.

3.5 Original Suit No.18 of 2017, filed
by the petitioner and his mother seeking
adjudication of title and challenging the
sale deed, is pending before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Basti.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the mutation orders are illegal as the
sale deed was executed beyond the share of
the transferor and without partition, and
that the authorities failed to consider the
Will and objections raised by the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the State-respondents
and also counsel appearing for the private
respondent contend that the impugned
orders arise out of mutation proceedings
which are summary in nature, do not decide
title, and that the petitioner has an
efficacious remedy before the civil court
where the title dispute is already pending. It
is further submitted that in the suit, the
application seeking interim injunction has
been rejected.

6. The legal position regarding the
nature, scope and maintainability of writ
petitions challenging orders passed in
mutation proceedings under the Code, 2006
stands authoritatively settled by this Court
in Smt. Kalawati v. The Board of
Revenue2, which has been followed
consistently in subsequent decisions.

7. The principles laid down in
Kalawati case (supra) may be restated as
follows:

7.1 Summary and fiscal character of
mutation proceedings: Proceedings under
Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 are purely summary in nature,
undertaken for fiscal purposes such as
updating revenue records and facilitating
land revenue collection. They neither
create, confer, extinguish nor determine
substantive rights or title to property.
Mutation entries do not constitute title
documents
or
operate
as
deeds
of
conveyance.

7.2. No presumptive or evidentiary
value on title: Entries made pursuant to
mutation
proceedings
have
no
presumptive
value
whatsoever
on
questions
of
ownership,
title
or
proprietary rights. Such entries are
always subject to challenge and final
adjudication by a competent civil or
revenue court. Section 39 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 expressly stipulates
that no order or entry under mutation
proceedings shall debar any person from
establishing his rights in a suit or other
legal proceeding.
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7.3 Writ jurisdiction ordinarily not
invocable: This Court has held that writ
petitions under Article 226 challenging
mutation
orders
are
generally
not
entertainable, as the petitioner has an
efficacious
alternative
remedy
by
instituting a civil suit for declaration of
title, permanent prohibitory injunction
and
consequential
reliefs.
The
extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not to
be exercised as a court of appeal to reappreciate evidence, correct errors of
fact or law, or interfere in summary
fiscal proceedings. Judicial restraint is
imperative to maintain the distinction
between revenue record updation and
substantive title adjudication.

7.4 Exceptions for writ interference:
Despite the general bar, writ jurisdiction
may
be
exercised
in
exceptional
circumstances
where
any
of
the
following conditions is demonstrably
satisfied:

(i) the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction;

(ii)
rights
or
title
already
adjudicated by a competent civil court are
ignored, varied or contradicted;

(iii) mutation directed not solely
on basis of possession but on substantive
merits of title or succession claims;

(iv) rights purportedly created in
the mutation order in violation of express
statutory provisions;

(v) order obtained through fraud,
collusion,
fabrication
or
material
misrepresentation;

(vi) patent jurisdictional error,
excess of jurisdiction or gross abuse of
authority;

(vii) violation of principles of
natural justice, such as non-issuance of
notice or denial of hearing.

8.
These
principles
have
been
reiterated and applied in a series of
subsequent decisions, underscoring that
writ interference against mutation orders is
warranted only in rare and exceptional
cases to prevent manifest injustice or
jurisdictional excesses.

9. Applying the aforesaid principles
enunciated in the case of Smt. Kalawati
(supra) to the facts of the present case, it
would be noticed that:

(a) Core dispute is one of title not
essential
for
writ
adjudication:
The
petitioner's primary grievance concerns the
validity of the registered sale deed dated
25.07.2016 (allegedly executed by Tulsi
Ram beyond his undivided share in joint
family property without partition), the
competing claim under the mother's Will
dated 25.07.2016, and determination of
respective shares in the joint family
property. These raise complex questions of
title, succession, Hindu undivided family
law,
validity
of
conveyance,
and
evidentiary
appreciation,
which
are
quintessentially fit for detailed trial before
a civil court and wholly inappropriate for
summary interference in writ jurisdiction.

(b)
Impugned
orders
purely
fiscal, no title declaration: A perusal of the
impugned orders reveals that they merely
direct
mutation/entry
of
name
of
respondent no.6 in revenue records on the
basis of prima facie consideration of the
registered sale deed and possession,
strictly for fiscal purposes under Sections
34 of the Code, 2006. No conclusive or
substantive declaration of title, ownership
or proprietary rights has been made by any
authority.

(c) None of the seven exceptions
laid down in the Kalawati case, are
attracted: The petitioner has failed to
12 All. Gangaram Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
demonstrate satisfaction of any recognized
exception justifying writ interference:

(i) No jurisdictional defect: The
Tehsildar,
SDM
and
Additional
Commissioner
were
duly
seized
of
jurisdiction under Sections 34, 35 (2) and
210 of the Code, 2006 to entertain and
decide mutation matters.

(ii) No prior civil court decree
ignored: There exists no prior judgment or
decree of any competent civil court
declaring title in favour of the petitioner
that stands contradicted.

(iii)
Mutation
based
on
possession and sale deed, not title merits:
The orders rest on possession evidenced by
the registered sale deed, without entering
into substantive adjudication of shares,
partition or Will validity.

(iv) No statutory violation: No
mandatory statutory safeguard has been
breached in the mutation process.

(v) No fraud or misrepresentation
pleaded/proved: There is no specific
averment, much less material evidence, of
fraud, collusion, fabrication of documents
or material misrepresentation vitiating the
orders.

(vi)
No
jurisdictional
error/excess/abuse: The record discloses
no patent lack, excess or abuse of
jurisdiction;
authorities
acted
within
competence.

(vii)
Natural
justice
duly
observed: Notices were issued to parties at
every stage, objections/recall applications
entertained, documentary evidence (sale
deed,
Will,
etc.)
considered,
and
opportunities of hearing afforded before all
the authorities.

(d)
Efficacious
civil
remedy
available and pending: Original Suit No.
18/2017 challenging the sale deed, seeking
title declaration and ancillary reliefs is
admittedly pending adjudication before the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti. The
rejection of interim injunction therein
further confirms that title merits necessitate
full-dressed trial with evidence. Section 39
of
the
U.P.
Revenue
Code,
2006
unequivocally protects the petitioner's right
to establish title in the suit, uninfluenced by
mutation findings.

(e)
Writ
interference
would
undermine settled principles: Entertaining
this petition would circumvent the pending
civil suit, multiply proceedings, and erode
the fiscal/summary nature of mutation as
emphasized in the Kalawati (supra). Any
apprehension that mutation entries may
prejudice the civil court is baseless, as
revenue records enjoy no evidentiary
weight on title, and civil courts decide
independently per law.

10. Taking into view the exposition of
the legal position with regard to the
summary nature of mutation proceedings in
the case of Kalawati (supra), the complete
absence of any exceptional circumstance
wherein a writ petition may be entertained,
and
the
availability
of
efficacious
alternative remedy before the competent
civil court, this Court is not inclined to
exercise its extraordinary discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution in the facts of the case.

11. The writ petition is dismissed as
being not entertainable.

12. It is, however, clarified that the
petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue
Original Suit No.18 of 2017, stated to be
pending before the civil court, or institute
any other appropriate legal proceedings for
declaration of title/rights and consequential
reliefs
before
the
competent
court/authority; any such civil or revenue
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court/authority
shall
independently
adjudicate the matter strictly on merits in
accordance with law, wholly uninfluenced
by the impugned mutation orders (being
purely fiscal in nature) or any observation
contained herein; and all rights, contentions
and pleas of the parties on merits are
expressly kept open.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 43026 of 2025

Mohammad Khalid Ameer ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The
matter
involves
a
challenge
to
a
demarcation order and subsequent dismissal of
appeals, where a petitioner a recorded tenureholder of a plot adjoining the land being
measured was denied notice and a hearing
during the boundary determination process.

Headnotes
Constitution of India,1950-Article 226U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue
Code Rules 2016-Rule 22(2)- Rule 22(2) is
a mandatory provision-Tenure-holders of
contiguous plots are necessary parties to
demarcation
proceedings-Failure
to
provide them notice strikes at the root of
the proceedings and constitute a breach of
audi alteram partem-the rejection of the
recall
application
on
"hyper-technical
grounds" was contrary to established
law(Tarkeshwar Vs. State of U.P.)-The
petitioner as an adjoining holder was
entitled to notice under Rule 22-writ
petition allowed.(Para 9 to 23) (E-6)

Held
The court set aside the orders of the Sub
divisional
magistrate
and
Additional
commissioner. The matter was remitted to the
Sub-divisional magistrate to conduct fresh
proceedings under section 24 after providing
due notice and opportunity to all interested
parties within three months.

Case law Cited
Tarkeshwar & 2 Ors Vs State of U.P. & 5 Ors,
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union
Vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.-
referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Revenue Code,2006, U.P. Revenue Code
Rules 2016

List of Keywords
Demarcation,
Adjoining
tenure
holder,
mandatory notice, audi alteram partem, natural
justice
procedural
recall,
ex-parte
order,
summary inquiry

Case Arising from
Civil Jurisdiction- WRIT-C No. - 43026 of
2025

Mohammad Khalid Ameer Vs. State of U.P.
& 9 Ors

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for parties
Advs. for Petitioner:-
Arpit Malviya , Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
Advs. for Respondent:
Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C, Dharmendra
Kumar, Shahbaz Ahmad Khan Shailendra Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1.
Heard
Sri
Awadhesh
Kumar
Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents and Sri Dharmendra