Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24618 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 217 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Ramrati @ Maika Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Vijai Bahadur Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pallavi Dubey,Rajendra Prasad Shukla Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the private- respondent No. 6/Smt. Savitri. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, in Revision No. REV/1595/2016 (Smt. Savitri vs. Additional Commissioner & Ors.), as well as any subsequent or consequential orders passed in pursuance thereof, being arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to settled principles of law. (Annexure No.1) ii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 11.03.2008 (passed by Naib Tahsildar, Bijnor) and 14.07.2009 (passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Revenue), which erroneously rejected the rightful claim of the petitioner. (Annexure No. 3 & 4) iii. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to not to give effect the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow as well as the impugned orders dated 11.3.2008 and 14.7.2009. iv. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore and give full effect to the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in Revision No. 2009100000435 (Smt. Ramrati vs. Smt. Savitri), which rightfully recognized the petitioner's lawful claim and declared the petitioner as a joint khatedaar of the disputed property. V. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent revenue authorities to recognize the Petitioner as the rightful heir of Late Kallu and accordingly record her name in the revenue records concerning the disputed land." Impugned order 10.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby, the Revision No. REV/1595/2016/Lucknow, Computerized Case No. R20161046001595 (Smt. Savitri vs. Additional Commissioner & Ors.) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") has been dismissed, affirms the order(s) dated 14.07.2009, passed by respondent No.3/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal/Case No. 46/2008- 2009, under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 and 11.03.2008 passed by the respondent No. 5/Naib Tehsildar, Bijnor, Lucknow in Mutation Case No. 451/8/13/46/128/04, under Section 34 of the Act of 1901. Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings. 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. 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. 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. Considering the aforesaid and also that the dispute in issue i.e. as to whether the petitioner/Smt. Ramrati @ Maika was the wife of Late Kallu could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and not in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular suit for their rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum. 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. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench