Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18823 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3213 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Samujh And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Jauhari,Satyendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Neetu Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to the private respondent No. 4 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 to quash the order dated 25.01.25 passed by the Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya opposite party no. 01 contained in (Annexure no- 01), order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Additional Officer Ist Sultanpur, opposite party no. 02 contained (Annexure no- 02) and order dated 07.11.2015 passed by Nayb Tehsildar Kudwar, Sadar, Sultanpur opposite party no. 03 (Annexure no- 03) in the interest of justice." Impugned order 25.01.2025 passed by the opposite party No.1/Additional Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya dismissed the Revision No. 1790/2021, Computerized Case No. C202104000001790 (Ram Samujh and others vs. Harishchandra), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") affirms the order(s) dated 21.12.2021, passed by respondent No.2/Additional Officer Ist, Sultanpur in Appeal/Case No. 8845/2016, under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 and 07.11.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3/Nayb Tehsildar Kudwar, Sadar, Sultanpur in Mutation Case No. T20060468628, 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 Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from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 respondent No. 4/Harish Chandra was the son of Late Bhondu or Shyamlal could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings based upon some documents viz. copy of Marks Sheet, copy of Pariwar Register, the respondent No. 4 established its case that he is the son of Bhondu, 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 :- 4.4.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench