JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma J. - The petitioner(s) has filed this Writ Petition, giving a challenge to the judgment dated 31.01.2009, as was passed by the Court of Tehsildar Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi, whereby, in the Mutation Case No.248 of 2007-2008, Smt. Rajendri Devi vs. Puran Singh, which was preferred under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. The mutation was decided by the Competent Revenue Authorities as against the petitioner. Being aggrieved against the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal as has been provided under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act, which was numbered as Revenue Appeal No.10 of 2008-2009, Smt. Bharat Dei and another vs. Smt. Rajendri Devi, which was decided and dismissed by the Court of Assistant Collector, Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi, by the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009. Subsequent thereto, on a challenge being given by the petitioner, to the aforesaid two judgments, in the revision which is contemplated under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, by virtue of which a Revenue Revision No.01 of 2009-2010, Smt. Bharat Dei and another vs. Smt. Rajendri Devi, the Court of respondent no.1 i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, too has affirmed the judgment of the Tehsildar Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi, and the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the Revision and as a consequence thereto, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 34/39, was rejected concurrently, by all the Courts below. 2. It is the settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. Rather to the contrary, the Law contemplates that any entries which are made as a consequences of the orders passed under the proceedings which are provided under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, would only be having a fiscal affect because it only determines the entitlement of the State and liability of a person/revenue holder, to ensure the remittance of the Land Revenue, payable towards the land which was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Some of the judgments, the reference of which has been made by the counsel for the respondents in relation to the aforesaid subject, have been reported in , Smt. Manorma Devi and others vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others,2004 97 RCrD 696 Smt. Gyan Mati Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Basti Division and others,2002 93 RCrD 510 , Sawarni (Smt) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) and others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 as well as , Smt. Rani Devi vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others, (1999) 4 AWC 3038 . 3. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it has been consistently held by the Courts, that, any adjudication which is made in a mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 would always be a subject to the provisions contained under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act, i.e. if any person is aggrieved against the determination made or on a denial made to record, his name in the Revenue records, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the effected person will have had to resort the proceedings of instituting the regular suit for deciding their rights. 4. In view of the provisions contained under Section 40 A of the Land Revenue Act, and in view of the ratio as laid down by the aforesaid judgments, as has been referred above as relied by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, there would be no order as to costs.