Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44335 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7165 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mithlesh Kumari Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Judicial Ii, Lucknow Division, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akashdeep Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Akashdeep Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The grievance raised by learned counsel for petitioner in the present case is with regard to land situated at Khata No. 562, Gata No. 702/2-023 hect. situated at Village Ram Nagar Bagaham Tehsil Dhaurahara, District Kheri . 3. It has been submitted that suo motto proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint by Paragana Adhikari, Dhaurahara U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act after a report receipt that an entry in favour of petitioner is forged and after perusing the entire revenue records it was held that no record could be found or any proceedings conducted where the name of the petitioner has been entered into the revenue records. 4. Apart from which it was found that Gata N. 702/chh area 0- 756 has been recorded as Navin Parti and accordingly name of the petitioner was ordered to be deleted and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of Rehabilitation Department of the Government. 5. The petitioner had preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow U/S 219 of U.P. Revenue Code which has also been rejected. The Commissioner has also returned a finding that name of the petitioner was continuing in the revenue records during consolidation proceedings but the mutation done U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act was illegal and arbitrary and merely because no objections were filed during the consolidation proceedings the land continued to be recorded in the name of petitioner but was of the view that there is no proceedings for mutation in favour of petitioner and accordingly the entry made is fabricated and forged and upheld the order of Paragana Adhikari, Dhaurahara. The petitioner has reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below but could not produce any document which may indicate his right or title on the said land. 6. In any view of the matter, in case he seeks a declaration recording ownership and title to the disputed land he will have to approach the court of civil jurisdiction and seek a declaration in this regard. The proceedings U/S 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings and it pertain only to the persons who is entitled to pay the revenue and do not declare the title vested in any person. 7. This point of law has been elaborated by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Others (Writ B No. 295 of 2022), paragraph No. 21 is quoted as under:- "21. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :- (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries; (v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court" 8. It is also legal proposition that against orders pertaining to mutation, a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench