Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18332 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3024 of 2025 Petitioner :- Khemraj Tiwari Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Devi, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party No.3 is hereby dispensed with. 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 thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.05.2024 passed by opp. party no.1 in Revision No.298/2021, Computerized Case No.C202108000000298, under section 219 of U.P. L.R. Act, Khemraj V/s Badkau and impugned order dated 15.02.2021 passed by opposite party no.2 in Case No.04910/2018, Computerized Case No.T201808100104910, under section 34 of U.P. L.R. Act, Hausil V/s Jaggu, as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and not alienate the property and not to change the nature of land also maintain status-quo, during pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order 25.05.202024, the opposite party No.1 dismissed the revision challenging the order dated 15.02.2021, passed by opposite party No.2 in Case No.04910/2018, Computerized Case No.T201808100104910, under Section 34 of the U.P. L.R. Act (Hausil Vs. Jaggu) by which the mutation order has been passed in favour of the opposite party No.3. 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 Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from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 as also the fact that case/claim of the petitioner is based upon unregistered 'Will' executed on 16.02.1999 by one Muida, who filed the objection in the mutation proceedings initiated in the year 1992 and also that genuineness of 'Will' could not be adjudicated in mutation proceedings, as also other issues related to succession involved, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute a regular suit for his 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 :- 2.4.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench