Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:926 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11269 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amar Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Singh,Aseem Goswami,Ram Mohan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Raj Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Under challenge is the order dated 03.10.2024 passed on a recall application moved by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 27.06.2023 which was passed in a revision whereby the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the respondent no.3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the property-in-question was recorded in the name of one Smt Satyabhama @ Nanhi w/o Sardar Singh. Smt Satyabhama is said to have executed a Will dated 12.06.1993 in favour of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that after the death of Smt. Satyabhama on 12.12.1993, they were not aware of the said Will, however, on the basis of succession the legal heirs of Smt. Satyabhama was duly recorded in the revenue records. It is the case of the petitioners that the counsel who had drafted the said Will had informed the petitioners on 19.10.2000 regarding the aforesaid Will. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner moved an application for seeking their mutation on the basis of the Will dated 12.06.1993. It is urged that the contentions of the petitioners did not find favour with the authorities despite the fact that the Will was duly proved in accordance with law in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is urged that three courts have committed an error in failing to note that the possession was the prime important factor for the authorities to have considered in order to decide the mutation case, however, since the petitioners were in possession, there was no occasion for the respondents to have inferred that the alleged Will dated 12.06.1993 was mired with suspicion and in such circumstances, since the possession of the petitioners had been continuing and the authorities have committed an error in ignoring the said fact and material on record. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it is now well settled that mutation proceedings are of summary nature and they do not decide the right, title or interest of any party. The importance of the mutation entries is only for fiscal purposes and in no manner they do not impact the rights of the parties. In the instant case, this Court finds that the mutation courts were of the view that the Will is mired with suspicion circumstances and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners was not accepted. Even though, the petitioners may have examined the attesting witnesses during the proceedings but the fact remains that on appraisal of evidence the mutation courts have taken a view which did not favour the petitioners and unless the said findings are shown to be patently perverse, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not interfere with these findings. Moreover, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P. ; 2021 SCC Online SC 802 wherein it was held that the writ petitions are not maintainable against the orders passed in mutation cases as they are summary in nature and the parties have a right to get their rights adjudicated in a regular forum, coupled with the fact that this aspect has also been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kalawati vs Board of Revenue; 2022 (4) ADJ 578 wherein certain exceptions have been carved out, in which circumstances, the writ may be entertained by the Court. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court does not find that there are any persuading circumstances which may persuade this Court to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to get their right adjudicated in accordance with law as per provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is made clear that the dismissal of the petition may not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits regarding the case of the petitioners which in any case if adjudicated before the regular forum may be decided on the basis of evidence before it. Order Date :- 7.1.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench