Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24451 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28357 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial Faizabad Division And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Srivastava,Rajesh Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard. 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 impugned order dated 28.06.2018, 31.05.1997 and 12.03.1997, passed by the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 respectively as contained in Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively to this writ petition. [II] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute, during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice." Impugned order 28.06.2018 passed by the opposite party No.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, District- Faizabad dismissed the Revision No. 13/2009, Computerized Case No. C2009040013 (Shailendra Kumar vs. Vimla), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") affirms the order(s) dated 31.05.1997, passed by respondent No.2/Sub-Divisional Officer, Rudauli, Present Tehsil- Ram Sanehi Ghat, District- Barabanki in Appeal/Case No.39, under Section 210 of the Act of 1901 and 12.03.1997 passed by the respondent No. 3/Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Rudauli, Present Tehsil- Ram Sanehi Ghat, District- Barabanki in Mutation Case No. 10/4/45/14/453/501/58/23/259/16/7/713/56/805/107/96-97, under Section 34/35 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 Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from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 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