Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code serve summary fiscal purposes and do not confer or determine substantive property rights; thus, challenges under writ jurisdiction are generally not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Ram Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J N Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing along with Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, for the State-respondents and Sri Puneet Kumar Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 18.10.2021 and 05.02.2024 passed by the Tehsildar/Respondent no.5, Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, in Case No.00335/2016 (Sushila vs. Gangaram), under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,[Code, 2006]the appellate order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Respondent no. 4, Bhanpur, in Case No. 603/2024 ( Gangaram Mishra vs. Smt. Sushila Devi and others ) under Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006, and the revisional order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration)/Respondent no. 3, Basti Region, in Case No. 1052/2024 ( Gangaram Mishra vs. Sushila Devi ) under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.

3. The dispute pertains to agricultural land situated at Village Chhitirgavan, Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, which is admittedly joint family property. The factual background of the case, as reflected from the pleadings, is set out hereinbelow:

3.1 On 25.07.2016, the petitioner's brother, Tulsi Ram is stated to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.6, Sushila Devi. The petitioner claims that the transfer was made in excess of the vendor's undivided share and without prior partition.

3.2 On the same date, the petitioner's mother is stated to have executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner. Mutation proceedings were thereafter initiated on the basis of the sale deed.

3.3 By order dated 18.10.2021, mutation was allowed in favour of respondent no.6. The petitioner filed a recall application and objections. Subsequently, by order dated 05.02.2024, the Tehsildar reaffirmed the mutation entry.

3.4 The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 35 (2) of the Code was dismissed on 18.07.2024, and the revision under Section 210 of the Code was dismissed on 04.10.2025.

3.5 Original Suit No.18 of 2017, filed by the petitioner and his mother seeking adjudication of title and challenging the sale deed, is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mutation orders are illegal as the sale deed was executed beyond the share of the transferor and without partition, and that the authorities failed to consider the Will and objections raised by the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the State-respondents and also counsel appearing for the private respondent contend that the impugned orders arise out of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature, do not decide title, and that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil court where the title dispute is already pending. It is further submitted that in the suit, the application seeking interim injunction has been rejected.

6. The legal position regarding the nature, scope and maintainability of writ petitions challenging orders passed in mutation proceedings under the Code, 2006 stands authoritatively settled by this Court in Smt. Kalawati v. The Board of Revenue , 2022 (2) ADJ 456 which has been followed consistently in subsequent decisions.

7. The principles laid down in Kalawati case (supra) may be restated as follows:

7.1 Summary and fiscal character of mutation proceedings Proceedings under Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are purely summary in nature, undertaken for fiscal purposes such as updating reve