JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.3.2023, whereby the Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh has allowed the revision filed by the private-respondent under Section 210 U.P. Revenue Code-2006.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed ignoring the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 governing succession and that the private respondents are not entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records.

4. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings leading to passing of the order impugned were summary in nature and it is well settled proposition of law that a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings is not maintainable, therefore this writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the proceedings of mutation are summary in nature, the authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title of the parties in such proceedings. Similar averment has been made in paragraph 31 of the writ petition.

6. It is well settled that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide the rights and title of the parties and the revenue entries are maintained only for the purposes of payment of land revenue.

7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation 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 does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings. In the case of Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors. , AIR 1957 ALL 205 , notice was taken of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with the orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue was whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:-

"3. ...It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights.

That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question..."

8. The question with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings fell for consideration in the case of Sri Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue, U.P. , Lucknow & Ors. 2002 (93) RD 6 and it was held that the High Court does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that mutation proceedings are only summarily drawn on the basis of possession and the parties have a right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit. The observations made in the judgment are extracted below:-

"11. This Court has consistently taken the view as is apparent from the decisions of this Court referre