HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9790 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.7. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 10.06.2025, 31.10.2001, 26.02.2001, 17.04.2001 and 03.07.1998 which have been brought on record as Annexure nos.1 to 5 respectively. Apparently, the dispute relates to the rights of the respective contesting parties. The disputed property in question was recorded in the name of Gendai lal s/o Jeje. Upon his death, it is the case of the petitioners that his three brothers namely Banshi, Totai and Pauthi inherited the same being real brothers and their names were also recorded in P.A.-11. However, at the behest of Smt. Shanti, the private respondent no.5 who claimed rights in respect of the property on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Gendai. The case of the mutation on the basis of a Will came to be decided in favour of Smt. Shanti on 11.07.1995. The predecessor in interest of the present petitioners moved an application for recall. However, it did not find favour thereafter, the present petitioners have filed an appeal which also did not find favour and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the orders as mentioned in the opening paragraph have been challenged in this writ petition which all arises out of mutation proceedings. The Court had put a specific query to the counsel for the petitioners as to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjai Kumar Singh, Nilay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Ram Sagar And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) how the instant petition would be maintainable since this Court does not usually entertains the petition arising out of summary proceedings and needless to say that mutation are summary proceedings. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondent no.4 has already held the Will to be in favour of the private respondent no.5 and those findings have been affirmed, it would create an impediment in the rights of the petitioners even if the petitioners assail the same in regular proceedings. Having considered the aforesaid submissions which needless to say is misconceived in light of the settled law of number of cases which have been decided by this Court in Kalawati vs Board of Revenue; 2022 [4] ADJ 578 as well as the Apex Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P; 2021 SC Online SC 802 that the mutation proceedings neither decides the rights of any of the parties nor any right is extinguished. The findings of court of limited jurisdiction is always subject to the findings of the regular court, hence, the alleged apprehension in the mind of the petitioners is misfounded. Considering the material available on record and also noticing the decision of this Court in Kalawati (supra) learned counsel for the petitioners could not pointed out any specific instance which would make the instant petition maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to take recourse as may be available to them in law. October 13, 2025 Harshita WRIC No. 9790 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench