Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48635 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7686 of 2025 Petitioner :- Banshi Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Sri Shakil Ahmad, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 9. 2. The grievance raised by petitioners in the present case is with regard to the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Judicial), Laharpur, District - Sitapur in an appeal U/S 210 of Land Revenue Act where he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners have previously instituted proceedings U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act for correction of the revenue records in light of the order dated 30.09.1998 passed by Consolidation Officer which had attained finality with regard to the land situated at Khata No. 259, Village - Sarawan, Pargana and Tehsil - Laharpur, District - Sitapur. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that previously the proceeding U/S 9(A)2 of the Consolidation of Holding Act attained finality and the shares between co- tenure holders with regard to disputed land of Khata No. 259 now Gata No. 1210/4.18 hect. situated at Village - Sarawan, Pargana and Tehsil - Laharpur, District - Sitapur became final where the shares of the petitioners were fixed as 1/6 while the share of the other co-tenure holders namely Vishram was 1/3, Raghunath was 1/3, Bansi Lal (petitioner no. 1) was 1/6 and Bharat Lal (petitioner No. 2) was 1/6. Subsequently, it is stated that Raghunath has willed his entire property in favour of petitioners. 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, an application U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act was submitted by the petitioners which was rejected by means of order dated 25.10.2024. While rejecting the application of the petitioners which was filed sometimes in 2015, it was noticed that during pendency of the said application, Raghunath had died and the petitioners had not filed any documents to substitute the legal heirs of Raghunath. While objections were filed by sons of Vishram opposing the application of the petitioners and in the aforesaid circumstances the application of the petitioners U/S 34 of Land Revenue Act was rejected. 5. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners where the prayer of the petitioners was to mutate their names in place of Raghunath. It was noticed that in Gata no. 1210, the name of Vishram S/o Narayan was recorded and the name of Raghunath was never recorded in the revenue records and apart from the above, no document with regard to death of Raghunath was ever filed by the petitioners in the said proceedings and in the aforesaid circumstances he did not find any merits in the appeal and dismissed the same. 6. Before this Court, the petitioners have reiterated their arguments raised before the authorities below. This Court finds that both the authorities have not committed any infirmity in deciding the said application. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in both the impugned orders. Apart from the above, this Court finds that against the order U/S 210 of Land Revenue Act in mutation proceedings, a writ Under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India would not maintainable. 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 :- 20.8.2025/Ravi/ WRIC No. 7686 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench