JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, Chamoli on 06.11.2013 in favour of respondent no. 4. He has also challenged the judgment dated 30.05.2022 rendered by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 147-2016-17 filed by respondent no. 4, whereby the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Chamoli in Appeal No. 39/2015-16 was set-aside and Tehsildar’s order passed on 06.11.2013 was affirmed. 3. According to the petitioner, he and his brother owned 3 Nali 8 Muthhi land in Village Kshetrapal, Pargana Dasoli, District Chamoli in which both had equal share; his brother Mahfooz Hasan sold his entire share to Narayan Singh and Pooran Singh by a sale deed dated 22.09.1983, and Pooran Singh authorised Narayan Singh to use the entire purchased land. Narayan Singh established a Cold Storage over the said land by taking loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation (for short ‘U.P.F.C.’), however due to default by Narayan Singh in repayment of loan, entire land with building was sold in a public auction by U.P.F.C. by invoking power under Section 29 of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Respondent no. 4 purchased the said property in public auction. 4. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that as per norms, two and half Nali land is needed for establishing a Cold Storage; since the land purchased from petitioner’s brother was not sufficient to meet the requirement for getting financial assistance from U.P.F.C., therefore, Narayan Singh got a sale deed fraudulently executed on 06.03.1987 from the petitioner with the assurance that he will return the land once the work of establishing Cold Storage is complete; petitioner’s name continued in the revenue record, even after the sale deed and it is the petitioner who continued in physical possession over the land in question; by a registered agreement executed on 12.08.1992, Narayan Singh relinquished his right over the land, regarding which sale deed dated 06.03.1987 was executed, therefore, no title could have passed on to respondent no. 4, who claims to have purchased the said land from U.P.F.C. in a public auction held on 16.10.1999. 5. Respondent no. 4, who purchased the land in question from U.P.F.C., applied for mutating her name in the revenue records. 4, who claims to have purchased the said land from U.P.F.C. in a public auction held on 16.10.1999. 5. Respondent no. 4, who purchased the land in question from U.P.F.C., applied for mutating her name in the revenue records. Her application was initially rejected by Tehsildar vide order dated 24.09.2012 on the ground that name of U.P.F.C. is not recorded in revenue records, another ground which was indicated was that land more than Narayan Singh Negi’s share was sold by U.P.F.C. 6. Respondent no. 4 challenged Tehsildar’s Order dated 24.09.2012 by filing an Appeal which was allowed and learned Assistant Collector remanded the matter to Tehsildar, and subsequently, Tehsildar vide order dated 06.11.2013 allowed the mutation application filed by respondent no. 4. 7. Petitioner challenged Tehsildar’s order dated 06.11.2013 by filing Appeal No. 39/2015-16, which was partly allowed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Chamoli vide judgment dated 30.06.2017 and the order passed by Tehsildar was modified. 8. The judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed by Assistant Collector was challenged by respondent no. 4 by filing a revision, which was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by Assistant Collector, First Class was set-aside and the order passed by Tehsildar on 06.11.2013 was affirmed, by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 30.05.2022. 9. Petitioner has now challenged the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by Board of Revenue and also Tehsildar’s Order dated 06.11.2013. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision filed by respondent no. 4 was not maintainable against Assistant Collector’s order passed in Appeal. Thus, he submits that remedy of revision is not available in a case where either party has availed remedy of appeal. In support of this contention he relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2020 146 RD 207 . Paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment, on which reliance was placed, is reproduced below:- “6. In support of this contention he relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2020 146 RD 207 . Paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment, on which reliance was placed, is reproduced below:- “6. A bare reading of the provision of Section 219 of the Act shows that the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner, or the other superior Courts mentioned there, are empowered to hear and decide any Revision from the order or proceeding, made or held by any Revenue Court subordinate to the named superior Courts mentioned in the statute, in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, to employ the phraseology of the statute. The parameters on which the jurisdiction would be exercised speak about the superior Court satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed, or the proceedings held by a subordinate Revenue Court is another matter. Here, the question is about the maintainability of a Revision from an order of a subordinate Court that has already been challenged in appeal by a party, and the appeal has been decided one way. The phraseology of the statute clearly reveals that a Revision from the order of a Court of subordinate jurisdiction does not lie to the Board, where an appeal lies and has been preferred by a party; that party cannot apply further in Revision to the Board, as that is not open under Section 219(1) of the Act.” 11. The said judgment also says that a party who has filed appeal cannot avail remedy of Revision, thus it do not help the petitioner. In the present case, it was the petitioner, who filed Appeal before the Assistant Collector therefore, going by the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the revision filed by respondent no. 4 cannot be said to be not maintainable, as respondent no. 4 did not file Appeal against Tehsildar’s order. 12. Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 lays down the fora before which order passed by different revenue authorities is appealable. 4 cannot be said to be not maintainable, as respondent no. 4 did not file Appeal against Tehsildar’s order. 12. Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 lays down the fora before which order passed by different revenue authorities is appealable. Section 211 deals with First Appeal and provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court authorised under Section 210 against every original order passed in any proceedings held under the Act unless finality is attached to such order. Sections 210 & 211 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are reproduced below:- “210. Courts to which appeals lie. - [(1) Appeal shall lie under this Act as follows : (a) to the Record Officer from orders passed by any Assistant Record Officer; [(b) (i) to the Commissioner from orders passed by a Collector or an Assistant Collector first class or Assistant Collector in charge of sub-division. (ii) to the Collector from orders passed by an Assistant Collector second class or Tahsildar.] (c) [* * *] (2) [* * *] (3) [* * *] (4) [* * *] (5) [* * *] [(6) No appeal shall lie against an order passed under Sections 28, 33, [* * *], 39 or 40.] 211. First appeal. - Unless an order is expressly made final by this Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court authorized under Section 210 to hear the same from every original order passed in any proceedings held under the provisions of this Act.” 13. Sections 212 & 213 of the said Act provide for Second Appeal and Third Appeal respectively, however, these Sections are omitted for the areas to which Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is applicable. 14. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enforced in District Chamoli w.e.f. 01.07.1969, therefore, the provision for second and third appeal, contained in Sections 212 & 213 will not apply in District Chamoli. 15. Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 deals with Revision, which reads as under:- “[219. Revision. 14. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was enforced in District Chamoli w.e.f. 01.07.1969, therefore, the provision for second and third appeal, contained in Sections 212 & 213 will not apply in District Chamoli. 15. Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 deals with Revision, which reads as under:- “[219. Revision. - (1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue Court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue Court appears to have – (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. (2) If an application under this section has been moved by any person either to the Board, or to the Commissioner, or to the Additional Commissioner, or the Collector or to the Record Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them.]” 16. Perusal of Section 219 of the aforesaid Act reveals that a person aggrieved by an order passed by a revenue authority under Land Revenue Act can file revision challenging such order; but, two conditions are required to be satisfied, namely- (i) either no appeal lies against such order or (ii) an appeal lies, but, has not been preferred. Sub-section (2) of Section 219 further provides that a person, who has once availed remedy of revision, cannot take the matter any further in revision under Section 219 of the Act. 17. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. Sub-section (2) of Section 219 further provides that a person, who has once availed remedy of revision, cannot take the matter any further in revision under Section 219 of the Act. 17. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that the agreement, if any, was executed by Narayan Singh after mortgaging the land in question in favour of U.P.F.C., therefore, Narayan Singh lost the legal competence to relinquish his right through such agreement after creating a charge in favour of U.P.F.C. He further submits that a registered sale deed cannot be nullified by an agreement and since the agreement was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 100/-, it has no sanctity in the eyes of law, as re-conveyance deed needs to be properly registered and stamped. 18. Be that as it may, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Tehsildar in mutation proceedings, which was affirmed by Board of Revenue. Section 40-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides that order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding. 19. It is settled position in law that mutation is only for fiscal purpose and is not decisive of right, title or interest over property, which can be decided in a regular suit. 20. In the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L. Venkatesh Reddy, (2015) 14 SCC 784 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the first defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half-share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half-share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are extracted below: “21. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are extracted below: “21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) ‘7. … Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.’ 22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired.” In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the first defendant by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half-share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion is liable to be set aside.” 21. It is settled that mutation cannot confer any right and title in favour of anyone nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally mutation is recorded on the basis of possession over the land for the purpose of collecting revenue. 22. It is settled that mutation cannot confer any right and title in favour of anyone nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally mutation is recorded on the basis of possession over the land for the purpose of collecting revenue. 22. In the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 802, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered and discussed the scope of mutation proceedings. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:- “6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. 7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 ; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12 ; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 ; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 ; T. Ravi v. B. ChinnaNarasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 ; BhimabaiMahadeoKambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 ; PrahladPradhan v. SonuKumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 ; and AjitKaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 .” 23. Since the order passed in mutation proceedings is not final on the question of title and title can only be decided by a competent court of law, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by Tehsildar and Board of Revenue in mutation proceedings while exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 24. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the order passed by Tehsildar as affirmed by Board of Revenue will not come in the way of petitioner, if he approaches a competent court of law for adjudication of his rights, qua the land in question. 25. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.