JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. Taking note of the facts of the case, the issuance of notice upon the private-respondents no. 4 to 7 is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s) :- "I. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash orders impugned 06.05.2022, 30.07.2007 dated and 07.09.2006 passed by opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 to 3 to the writ petition respectively. II. To issue an order, direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, District- Ayodhya No. 3 to the Tehsil-?.?. decide the mutation application of the Petitioner No. 24/48/256/26/387 u/s 34 of the U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT , 1901 afresh in view of the fact that the Gattas Nos. 236 and 292 are not abadi land; rather these are agricultural land. III. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature Commanding of Mandamus Upon opposite party nos. 4. to 7 not to alienate the property in question." 4. Vide impugned order dated 07.09.2006, relevant portion of which is quoted below, Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, District-Ayodhya, dismissed the Mutation Case No. 24/48/256/26/387 (Bhagauti Prasad Vs. Kheddur), instituted under Section 34 of LAND REVENUE ACT , 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). 5. Vide impugned order dated 30.07.2007 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad/Ayodhya in Appeal/Case No. 116 (Bhagauti Prasad Vs. Ram Kripal and Ors.), instituted under Section 210 of the Act of 1901, relevant portion of which is extracted herein-under, affirmed the impugned order of Tehsildar (Judicial) dated 07.09.2006. 6. Vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya passed in Case No. 1339/2008-2009, Computerized Case No. C2008040000161 (Bhagauti Prasad Vs. Ram Kripal and Ors.), under Section 219 of the Act of 1901 also declined to interfere in the impugned order(s) dated 07.09.2006 and 30.07.2007. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :- 7. According to statutory provision i.e. Section 331 -A of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), quoted below, 'the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division' can declare that land is being used other than agricultural purposes. The relevant portion of the same reads as under :- 7. According to statutory provision i.e. Section 331 -A of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950"), quoted below, 'the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division' can declare that land is being used other than agricultural purposes. "331-A. Procedure when plea of land being used for agricultural purposes is raised in any suit. (1) If in any suit, relating to land held by a bhumidhar instituted in any court, the question arises or is raised whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and a declaration has not been made in respect of such land under section 143 or 144, the court shall frame an issue on the question and send the record to the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division for the decision of that issue only: Provided that where the suit has been instituted in the court of Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division, it shall proceed to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of section 143 or 144, as the case may be. (2) The Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division after reframing the issue, if necessary, shall proceed to decide such issue in the manner laid down for the making of a declaration under section 143 or 144, as the case may be, and return the record together with his finding thereon to the court which referred the issue. (3) The court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division on the issue referred to it. (4) The finding of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub- division on the issue referred to it shall, for the purposes of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the court which referred the issue." 8. In the instant case, from the relevant portion of the impugned order(s), quoted above, it is apparent that Tehsildar (Judicial) has exercised the power provided under Section 331 -A of the Act of 1950 and therefore, as also that procedure as required under Section 331 -A of the Act of 1950 was not followed, this Court finds that interference in the matter is required. 9. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order(s) dated 06.05.2022, 30.07.2007 and 07.09.2006 (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the petition, respectively) are quashed. The matter is remanded back of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad, Ayodhya concerned who shall proceed in the matter after taking note of Section 331 -A of the Act of 1950 and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, the matter be remitted to Tehsildar concerned to decide the mutation case in which the impugned order dated 07.06.2006 was passed. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.