HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8635 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents 1, 2, and 3, were present. A caveat has been filed by Sri Devendra Pratap Singh on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. The dispute in the present case pertains to property of Man Singh situated at Gata number 347/1.161 hectare and gata number 327/1.769 hectare situated at Village Rohiyashivpur, Pargana Tambaur, District Sitapur, of which Man Singh was the recorded tenure holder. 3. According to the petitioner, Man Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 9/4/1996 and also executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is the son of Man Singh and is also claiming the same property. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an application under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code has been filed, and proceedings were initiated. The application was allowed by an order dated 24/8/2011, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Laharpur, District Sitapur, which was dismissed on 23/3/2013. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow, which was also rejected by an order dated 21/6/2025. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed all the aforesaid orders. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has informed this Court that, apart from the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has also filed a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), District Sitapur, which was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devendra Pratap Singh, Maneesh Singh Ajay Kumar Singh And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner Judicial, Lucknow Division, Lucknow And Others .....Respondent(s) dismissed on 16/3/2022. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware as to whether the petitioner has availed any judicial remedies against the dismissal of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent has also opposed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, stating that the proceedings that have culminated in the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner( Judicial) are mutation proceedings, which relate only to the collection of revenue and do not determine the right title of any person in the disputed land. In case any person desires to dispute the title, then the same can be done before the court of competent jurisdiction by filing a suit for declaration. 7. Considering the rival submissions, and especially the aspect of maintainability, it is noticed that there are a series of judgments of this court stating that orders under section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, and the findings of the authorities in proceedings under section 34 of the UP Revenue Code, cannot be assailed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as they are merely summary proceedings and relate only to the person who would be entitled to pay revenue to the state. 8. 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; WRIC No. 8635 of 2025 2 (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" 9. Considering the aforesaid judgment, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) would not be maintainable. Apart from the above, there is a concurrent finding of law recorded by all the authorities. This court also finds that even suit proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act have also been rejected. Accordingly, in case the petitioner has assailed the order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), dated 16-3-2022, by filing an appeal, then he would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the appellate court to seek any relief which has been prayed for in the present writ petition. 10 Subject to the aforesaid observations, this court does not find any merit in the present case. Accordingly, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 11. The dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from exercising his rights before any court of competent jurisdiction. September 11, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8635 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench