JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The two writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and raise common questions of law, accordingly with the consent of the parties, the petitions are being taken up for hearing together.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha.

3. Writ (C) No. 21993 of 2022 has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasganj in Case No. RST/03294 of 2018 (Computer Case No. T201818750103294, Alladin vs. State of U.P.) under Section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 24.2.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh in Case No. 00051/2020 (Computer Case No. C 202018000000051, Alladin vs. Gram Panchayat and Others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. Writ (C) No. 22082 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasganj in Case No. RST/03292 of 2018 (Computer Case No. T201818750103292, Alladin vs. State of U.P.) under Section 38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 24.2.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh in Case No. 00052/2020 (Computer Case No. C 202018000000052, Alladin vs. Gram Panchayat and Others) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

5. On the previous occasion an objection had been raised by the counsel appearing for the State respondents and the counsel appearing for the private respondents with regard to the entertainability of the writ petition by pointing out that the petition arises out of summary proceedings under Sections 32/38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. Counsel for the petitioners after making submissions to some extent has fairly conceded to the settled legal position that summary proceedings relating to correction of revenue records do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in way of a person getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit and it is for the said reason, that a consistent view has been taken by the courts that writ petitions arising out of such summary proceedings, are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In regard to the aforestated legal proposition, counsel for the parties are ad idem, and have placed reliance on the recent judgment of this Court in Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue and Others, 2022 (4) ADJ 578.

8. The question of entertainability of a writ petition against orders passed in summary proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction would not entertain writ petitions which arise out of such proceedings.

9. The settled legal position that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in records-of-rights and that such entries are only for 'fiscal purposes' and no ownership is conferred on the basis thereof, and further that the question of title of a property can only be decided by a competent court having jurisdiction in such matters, has been restated in recent decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 (5) ADJ 212 (DB), Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and Others, 2020 (146) RD 545 and Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue and Others (supra).

10. The reluctance of the Courts to interfere with orders arising out of mutation proceedings is primarily for the reason that the question at issue is with regard to correction of record-of-rights which is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry ther