HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9120 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondent is dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the orders dated 06.08.2007, 16.05.2025 12.09.2018, 06.08.2007, 16.05.2025, all of which have been passed in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pertaining to mutation of the 1/3rd part of the land of Gata No. 877, area 0.622 hectare situated at Village Pure Ishwar Giri, Majara and Post - Pothai, Tehsil Salon, District Raebareli. 4. The claim of the petitioner is on the basis of a sale deed executed in her favour by one Raj Kumari w/o Late Ramakant. It seems that during the proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 the respondents were able to establish that Raj Kumari had remarried on 28.09.2006 and an oral evidence in this regard was also tendered by one Birjesh S/o Guru Prasad and Om Prakash Goswami. Apart from them, Pradip Kumar S/o Gunnu had also made a statement. 5. It is on the basis of the said material coming on record that the competent authority was of the view that in light of the provisions contained inn Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, Raj Kumari would not have any right and the property would revert back to the main living descendants and consequently did not take cognizance of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, it is noticed that the proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code were a summary proceedings only for the purpose of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Nilam Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) collection of revenue and do not decide any right or title in the matter. The findings rendered in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006do not establish the title of the disputed property and it is accordingly such findings are not subjected to challenge in a writ proceedings as has been considered by various judgments of this Court. 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. September 24, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 9120 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench