JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed by this Court, issuance of notice to private respondent(s) is dispensed with. 3. Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.1-Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.2-Up-Ziladhikari, Bikapur, District- Ayodhya as also the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar-Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya). 4. The sole ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order of respondent No.3-Tehsildar- Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya) passed in Mutation Case No.T-2015.423032890 (Dev Kumari v. Shipula) filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Act of 2006") as also the orders dated 29.02.2020 and 04.01.2023, whereby the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority affirmed the order of the respondent No.3-Tehsildar-Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya) dated 25.01.2017 by dismissing the appeal and the revision, respectively, is to the effect that the mutation entry should be based upon the possession over the property in issue which in this case is Khata No.225, Gata No.186, Area 1.0930 Hect. situated at Village-Dhanwanwa, Pargana-Pashchim Raath, Tehsil-Bikapur, District-Ayodhya and for the same in the order regarding mutation the Authority concerned, as per law, is under obligation to observe on the issue of possession and in this case, the respondent No.3- Tehsildar-Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya) has not made any observation regarding issue related to possession over the property in issue. As such, interference by this Court is required. 5. The aforesaid submission, to the view of this Court, is fallacious in view of the observation made by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar-Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya) in his order dated 25.01.2017, which is apparent from reasons recorded by the said authority. The relevant observations made by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar-Bikapur, Faizabad (Now-Ayodhya), on reproduction, reads as under:- 6. For the reasons aforesaid as also in view of settled proposition of law based upon Section 39 of the Code of 2006, which says that any observations made in the mutation proceedings would not be binding upon the competent court of jurisdiction while dealing with the regular suit, more particularly when the petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed before the Court concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, without interfering in the impugned order(s), it is disposed of finally with liberty to petitioner to file a regular suit claiming his rights over the property in issue based upon the 'Will', which alleged to have been executed by Patteshar, husband of Smt. Shipula, who, executed the sale deed in favour of private respondent No.4.