Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20748 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3502 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ghirrau Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Balrampur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay 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 State-respondents 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) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 2037/2024 Computerized Case No. C202408000002037 "Ghirrau Vs. Ram Vilas Maurya and others" and the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Tulsipur, District Balrampur in Case No. 5712 of 2024 computerized case No. T202408100205712 "Ram Vilas Maurya Vs. Smt. Parvati" contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to maintain status quo over the land in question as exist till today." Vide impugned order dated 18.12.2024, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), II, Devi Patan Mandal, has affirmed the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Tulsipur, Balrampur in the Mutation Case No. 5712 of 2024, instituted under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Thus, the subject matter of the present application 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 Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of the Code of 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing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 the petitioner is claiming his right over the property in issue being brother of Parvati Devi, who executed a registered 'Will' on 28.10.2020 in favour of side opposite based upon which in mutation case order(s) favourable to side opposite have been proved 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 application is disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench