Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66993 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13159 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner Administration Court No.1 Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 545 of 2022 Computer Case No. 202211000000545 (Sanjay and Others Versus Smt. Satviri and Others), impugned judgment and order dated 28.08.2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Baraut, District Baghpat passed in Appeal No. 01522 of 2020 Computer Case No. T- 202011080401522 (Sanjay Kumar and another versus Smt. Satviri and Others) as well as impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2020 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Binauli, Tehsil Baraut, District-Baghpat Mutation Case No. 2257 of 2017 Computer Case No. T-201711880042257 (Smt. Satviri Versus Pawan Kumar) arising out of the proceedings under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (Annexure Nos.3, 5 & 6 to this writ petition)." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that brother of the petitioner has sold the property in dispute in excess of his share. It is further contended that the cheque mentioned in the sale deed was never encashed and a suit for cancellation of the sale deed is pending. Mutation courts have directed for mutating the name of the vendee of his brother. 4. This question as to the validity of the sale deed and whether the sale deed has been executed in excess of shares of the parties, can only be looked into a regular declaratory proceeding or in a proceedings for cancellation of sale deed. Mutation orders are only summary in nature and do not decide the right, title and interest of the parties and are only meant for fiscal purpose. In view of judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 4 ADJ 578, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to get his rights declared in a regular proceedings. 7. It is needless to say that the findings recorded by the mutation court will not be binding to the regular proceedings, if any, have initiated by the petitioners. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad