JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J.: - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissing the revision no. 627/2009-10 under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by Smt. Sangeeta Kumari. 2. I have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3 .It appears that Smt. Sangeeta claimed mutation on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Chhotey Lal which mutation order was passed on 28.02.2007. However, Smt. Savitri moved an application for recalling the order dated 28.02.2007 which was allowed on 30.03.2007 and order dated 28.02.2007 was recalled. 4. On 19.02.2009. Smt. Savitri filed objection that Will filed by Smt. Sangeeta was forged Will. Chhotey Lal was government servant who always signed while Will contains his thumb impression. 5. Despite opportunity, no evidence was led by Smt. Sangeeta to prove the Will while from objector side, Mahngu Prasad and Ram Narain were examined. 6. Since Will was not proved by petitioner, Naib Tehsildar directed the mutation of the name of daughters of deceased Chhotey Lal taking help of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act vide order dated 31.03.2010. 7. Order of Naib Tehsildar passed on 31.03.2010 was challenged by way of revision before Additional Commissioner who confirmed the order holding that Will was not proved. 8. Submission of Sri Mishra is that on 15.02.2010, Naib Tehsildar had closed the opportunity of evidence which order was sought to be recalled by means of application dated 26.03.2010 but instead of passing any order on the said recall application, Naib Tehsildar has decided the matter on merits. Revisional court has also not considered this ground. 9. I find from the memo of revision that in none of the grounds namely 1 to 8, non-consideration of the recall application has been mentioned. In ground no. 7, only thing said is that principle of natural justice has been violated. 10. Learned Additional Commissioner has found that non-examination of witnesses to prove the will, allegedly executed in favour of petitioner justifies the order passed by Naib Tehsildar. 11. This is no ground that since general dates were fixed, witnesses were fed up and chose not to appear. 12. Fact remains that witnesses have not proved the will as such, there is no error in the orders passed by Naib Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. 13. 11. This is no ground that since general dates were fixed, witnesses were fed up and chose not to appear. 12. Fact remains that witnesses have not proved the will as such, there is no error in the orders passed by Naib Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. 13. Moreover, the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 14. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in [ 2006 (24) LCD 203 ] Smt. Durgawati Vs. Additional Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and others. In para 7 of the judgment only exception mentioned is that there is no dispute of natural heirship. 15. Relevant part of para 7 of the judgment is being reproduced below: "So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that in mutation matters there should be no interference by higher court it is to say that this principle is not of universal application. No doubt in mutation proceedings the rights of the parties are not decided. The mutation takes place only for limited purposes to fix the liability of the person to pay the land revenue. It is also true that generally higher courts do not interfere with the mutation order. But there is no absolute bar to interfere with the mutation order in appropriate cases particularly when there is no dispute of natural heirship." 16. Next judgment cited by Sri Mishra is reported in [2008(105) RD 698] Smt. Saroj Singh and another Vs. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and others. This was a matter arising out of restoration application. Consequently, in these circumstances, this Court held in para 14 that there has been no adjudication on merit. Relevant para 14 of the judgment is being reproduced below: "14. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 that writ petition against the proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act will not be maintainable does not seem to be correct because there has been no adjudication on merit up till now. The petitioners are litigating all throughout for adjudication of their claim on merit." 17. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bharose Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others in C.M.W. Petition no. 1746 of 1984, in para 7 observed as under: "7. The petitioners are litigating all throughout for adjudication of their claim on merit." 17. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bharose Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others in C.M.W. Petition no. 1746 of 1984, in para 7 observed as under: "7. By now it is well settled that where the dispute is in mutation proceedings which do not adjudicate upon rights or title of the parties, this Court need not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such matters person aggrieved shall have rider to seek remedy in the appropriate Court." 18. Case of Ram Bharose has been referred in the case of Narain Singh and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others [1999(17) LCD 778]. Relevant para 10 of the judgment is reproduced below: "10. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The said proceedings are summary in nature. In these proceedings, rights and titles of parties to the property in dispute are not decided. The orders passed in the said proceedings are not binding upon the parties or upon the Courts in regular suits or proceedings. The said orders are subject to the decision by the Courts on the regular side. The party aggrieved by the said order may file a regular suit before a Court of the competent jurisdiction for declaration of his title, therefore, a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the orders passed in the said proceedings, is legally not maintainable." 19. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khem Karan has taken a similar view in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. Smt. Leela Mathur and others [2004(22) LCD 1532]. 20. Hon'ble Anil Kumar J. in the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow and others [2013(31) LCD 205] and in the case of Ram Bahadur Vs. Nayab Tehsildar and another [2013(31) LCD 657] has held in para 7 as under: "Further, it is settled view of this Court that it should not interfere with the order issued by the authorities while deciding the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act , as in the said proceedings the issue only in respect to record the name of tenure holder in the revenue record is under consideration. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title of property in question and his right is to be established as per the procedure provided under law (See Jaipal Vs.Board of Revenue ,U.P., Allahabad and others ,1956 ALJ 807, Smt. Lakhpati and another Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1984 RD 378, State of U.P. through Collector, Agra Vs. Board of Revenue at Lucknow and others, 1993 RD ,206, Shiv Raj Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue , U.P. , Lucknokw and others, 1989(2) AWC 947 , Pooran Singh Vs. Baord of Revenue and others , 2004(1) AWC 853 and Ram Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others, 2003 (1) AWC 505 )." 21. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipal (minor) Vs. the Board of Revenue U.P. [1956 ALJ Page 807 Para 3 (Column 2)] has held as under: "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, and his right to establish his title thereto is expressly reserved by Sec. 40(3) of the Act. The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." 22. Only exception carved out is whether entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 23. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. in the case of Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue at Lucknow and others [2012(115) RD 408]. In para 5 of the judgment carved out two exception (a) unless order is found to be totally without jurisdiction (b) or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. 23. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. in the case of Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue at Lucknow and others [2012(115) RD 408]. In para 5 of the judgment carved out two exception (a) unless order is found to be totally without jurisdiction (b) or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. Para 5 of the judgment is being reproduced below: "It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent Court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent Court." 24. Three exceptions have been referred by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. in the case of Neeresh Sharma Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow and others [2011(113) RD 82]. Learned Judge while holding that "it is settled that the writ petition arising out of the provisions under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 is not maintainable as the proceedings are summery in nature" has referred to the decision of Punam Singh Vs. Board of Revenue and others. Exceptions mentioned in the judgment are (1) if the order is without jurisdiction (2) If the rights and title of the parties have already been decided by any competent authority and that had been varied by mutation courts (3) If the mutation had been directed not on the basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed but after entering into debate of entitlement to succeed the property touching into merits of rival claims. 25. In para 11 of the judgment it has been observed that if mutation has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of fact or by fabricating the documents, the writ petition cannot be dismissed. 26. From the above discussion, it is clear that instant case does not fall in any of the exception. 27. Consequently, writ petition is not maintainable. Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 28. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.