Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28276 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1001316 of 2003 Petitioner :- Smt.Suman Dwivedi Respondent :- Laxmi Narain @ Laxmi Nath And Others 3 Counsel for Petitioner :- Shafiq Mirza,Anurag Shukla,R.P.Yadav,Ram Abhilakh Misra,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.S.Nigam, N.L.Pandey, Onkar Nath Tiwari Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s) :- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2003 passed by the opp. party no.3 contained in annexure no.5 to the writ petition, including the order dated 16.10.1999 contained in annexure no.3 and order dated 30.6.99 contained in annexure no.2 which stands merged in annexure no.5." 4. Vide impugned order dated 11.03.2003, the opposite party No.3/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissed the revision registered as Revision No.430/99-2000 (Smt. Suman Vs. Smt. Meena Dwivedi and others), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and upheld the impugned orders dated 16.10.1990 and 30.06.1999 (annexed as Annexure Nos.3 and 2 respectively to the present petition) passed by SDM, Hasanganj in Appeal No.57/1998-99, under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 (Smt. Suman Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Meena Devi) and order dated 30.06.1999 passed by Tehsildar in Case No.272/116. 5. The subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings. 6. It is to be noted that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit. 7. Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. 8. Mutation of a property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court. 9. Considering the aforesaid as also the following facts:- In the impugned order dated 11.03.2003 passed by opposite party no.3- Additonal Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision No.430/99-2000 (Smt. Suman Vs. Smt. Meena Dwivedi and others), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the opposite party no.3 took note of the fact that Laxmi Nath, original tenure holder of the land in dispute, transferred his 3/4th share of the land in dispute through registered sale-deed dated 16.08.1991 to Suman Dwivedi and remaining 1/3rd share to Smt. Meena Dwivedi through registered sale deed dated 28.05.1993, and thereafter observed that the dispute between the parties could only be decided under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'Act 1950') and not in the mutation proceedings, and in this view of the matter the opposite party no.3 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and upheld the impugned orders dated 16.10.1990 and 30.06.1999 (annexed as Annexure Nos.3 and 2 respectively to the present petition) passed by SDM, Hasanganj in Appeal No.57/1998-99, under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 (Smt. Suman Dwivedi Vs. Smt. Meena Devi) and order dated 30.06.1999 passed by Tehsildar in Case No.272/116. 10. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including aforesaid this Court finds that no interference in the impugned orders is required. It is for the reason that both the sale deed(s) are intact as have not been challenged till date and the claim of the parties would be decided in appropriate proceedings and not in mutation proceedings. 11. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to institute a regular proceeding for her rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, if suit is filed, would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench