Vimla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6887 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶1Heard Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kr. Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶2The instant petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated

11.11.2025 passed in Computerized Case No. T202510640101058 (Sanjay Singh vs. Beche Lal) and also the proceedings of Case Nos. T202510640101058 and T202510640101087, pending before Tehsildar, Tehsil Mishrikh, Sitapur.

¶3Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that mutation proceeding regarding Gata Nos. 447 and 1043 was culminated into the order dated 11.2.2025 wherein the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 were heard. Thereafter that order was also executed in khatauni on

8.10.2025. It is further submitted that despite the order dated 11.2.2025, respondent No.4 again initiated the mutation proceeding afresh by moving an application in RC Form 9 to reopen the controversy that was already decided by order dated 11.2.2025 whereupon the petitioners filed objections on 30.7.2025 and 10.11.2025, mentioning therein that the proceeding between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 had already been decided on 11.2.2025, therefore, the same could not be initiated afresh and respondent No.4 had remedy to either file a recall application or challenge the same before the revisional court. However, the Tehsildar by order dated 11.11.2025, stayed the execution of the order dated

8.10.2025. Therefore, the order of the Tehsildar is without jurisdiction. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vimla And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And Others .....Respondent(s)

¶4Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that against the impugned order dated 11.11.2025, the petitioners have remedy to file revision before the S.D.M. concerned. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have a statutory remedy of revision against the impugned order.

¶5Considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the mutation proceeding was concluded between the petitioners and respondent No.4 regarding Gata No. 447 and 1043 by order dated 11.2.2025. However, the objection was raised by respondent No.4 on the ground that the validity of the will was already subjudice before the appropriate court, therefore, on the basis of succession, the order cannot be passed.

¶6However, this Court is of the view that even if the order dated

11.2.2025 was passed, by ignoring any proceeding, then respondent No.4 may have challenged the same before revisional authority. Prima facie by passing the order on the basis of initiation of fresh proceeding, the Tehsildar went beyond jurisdiction and the revisional court has authority to correct such error if the authorities act beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned order can be challenged before the revisional court on this ground.

¶7However, considering the fact that prima facie order dated 11.11.2025 appears to be passed beyond jurisdiction, the effect and operation of the order dated 11.11.2025 shall remain stayed for a period of one month to enable the petitioners to file revision against the order dated 11.11.2025.

¶8In case such a revision is filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the same shall be decided expeditiously.

¶9With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. December 3, 2025 Vandana A227 No. 6887 of 2025 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench