Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62459 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12473 of 2025 Petitioner :- Aijaz Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Chandra Mishra,Prabhakar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.1279/2023, Computerized Case No. C20230900001279 "Aijaz Ali Vs. Shahanwal @ Shahanwaz and others" under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2023 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.994/2022, Computerized Case No. T202209720700994 "Kesar Jahan Vs. Gram Sabha" under Section 33 (ख) U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. (Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2023 passed by respondent no.3." 3. Brief facts of the case are that property in dispute was recorded in name of Tanveer Ahmad, who has executed an agreement to sale in August, 2021 and died on 01.11.2021. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the sons of the deceased. Name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records on the basis of sale-deed. The Tehsildar has referred the matter of succession on the ground that another wife of deceased- Tanveer Ahmad is alive and she is residing in Muzaffarnagar and therefore, this proceeding is initiated and decided against the petitioner. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased has divorced his earlier wife before his death but the said fact has not found favour by the mutation courts and the Talaqnama has been disbelieved. 5. The question as to whether respondent No. 4 was divorced or not cannot be gone into the mutation proceedings. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and are only for the fiscal purposes and do not decide the rights of the parties. 6. In view of judgment passed in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 4 ADJ 578, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to establish their right in a declaratory suit as provided under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 8. Needless to say that the finding recorded by the mutation Court will not be binding in a litigation on a regular side. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad