Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26683 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002207 of 1999 Petitioner :- Siya Ram Dass Chela Mahant Ayodhya Dass Objection Filed Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Faizabad Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Indu Prakash Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri I.P.Singh, Advocate who appeared on behalf of third party though there is no application for impleadment moved on behalf by the said party namely Janardan Das. The court has also heard learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 17.5.1999 which was passed in the revision arising out of mutation proceedings. 3. This Court finds that the dispute in question relates to the heirship of the Mahant. The petitioner claims right to the properties on the basis of the WILL said to have been executed by the Mahant whereas respondent no.2 also claims being the rightful heir as having been the disciple. The mutation court noticed that the dispute relates to the right to hold the office which is primarily a civil dispute and could be adjudicated by the civil court. This has been held to be not cognizable by the revenue courts and therefore it has been held by the revisional court that the order of mutation in itself should not have been passed and therefore, the parties have been relegated to get their rights decided in the appropriate proceedings before the competent court. 4. This court further finds that the operation of the order dated 17.5.1999 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 12.8.1999. 5. A specific query was put to learned counsel for the respective parties as to whether any proceedings are pending before the civil court, to which the learned counsel for the parties could not dispute and rather have unanimously stated that there are several proceedings at different stages in the civil court as well as another second appeal is also pending before the court. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts that there are already civil proceedings pending between the parties where the issue in question is engaging the attention, this Court finds that the instant petition which arises out of mutation proceedings which is of summary nature, which needless to say does not decide any right, title or interest of the party accordingly such a writ cannot be permitted to remain pending especially when the order impugned in the writ does not really impact the right of the parties rather they have been relegated to get their rights decided in the regular proceedings, which needless to say is already under consideration. 7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order in the instant petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench