HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9414 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Chandan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Govind Kumar Chaurasiya holding brief of Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 3. The dispute in the present case pertains to Khata No. 102, Gata No. 2160 measuring about 0.174 hectares, situated at Village Janaura, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad (Ayodhya), which was initially recorded in the name of Ram Achhcaibar Singh. After the death of Ram Achhaibar Singh all his properties were equally distributed amongst three sons except the disputed property. The respondent no.5 had moved an application under Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, the petitioners have filed their objections. The claim of respondent no.5 was on the basis of registered Will they had sought mutation of the disputed property while the name of the petitioners that the entire property of Ram Achhaibar Singh has been equally divided amongst the legal heirs. 4. It has been further submitted that the unregistered Will was given proof by the Authorities below and therefore on the basis of the said assailed the validity of the impugned orders. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the present proceedings under Section 32 of the U.P. Revenue Code pertaining to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ritika Singh, Chandan Srivastava, Lavkush Yadav, Yogesh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Smt. Sushila @ Sushila Singh And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) mutation of revenue record and such entries do not confer any title of the person for which entry has been made and consequently in case the petitioners wish to seek alteration any right or title over the disputed property they can file a suit for declaration before the competent court where they will able to demonstrate and lead evidence with regard to his contentions. 6. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the matter is arising out of mutation proceedings the petition would not be maintainable and, in as much as, the revenue entry do not any right or title in favour of the petitioners. In case the petitioners seek to claim their right or title in the said property, they have appropriate remedy of filing a suit. 7. 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 provided that in case appropriate suit is filed by the petitioner within next three weeks along with application for interim relief, the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the disputed property. In case the same is filed, the trial court is directed to decide the application for interim relief with expedition after giving due opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties in the said suit. WRIC No. 9414 of 2025 2 9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. September 25, 2025 Muk WRIC No. 9414 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench