Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18401 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3090 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deen Dyal Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Second Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Shri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private- respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s) :- "i. a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 Passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Administration) Second Devi Patan Division Gonda, in case no. 599/2023, computerized case no. C202308000000599 U/s-219 of the Act (Contained as Annexure No. 1) to this writ petition. ii. a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 passed by opposite party 2/Tehsiladar (Judicial) Gonda in no. case no. 00037/2014 titled as Deen Dayal versus Bal Govind and others U/S- 34 of the Act (Contained as Annexure No. 2) to this writ petition." Vide impugned order 10.03.2025, the opposite party No.1 dismissed the revision challenging the order dated 05.01.2023, passed by opposite party No.2 in a mutation Case No. 00037/2014 (Deen Dayal Vs. Bal Govind and Others), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code. 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 Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from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 05.10.1983 by one Ram Avtar, who filed the objection in the mutation proceedings initiated in the year 1997, and also that genuineness of 'Will' could not be adjudicated in mutation proceedings, as also other factual issues 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 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench