JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard Shri Chhote Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.2 and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondent No.1 and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Naib Tehsildar and order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Naib Tehsildar in case No.1605. The aforesaid two orders have been passed in mutation proceedings. 3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter first. 4. The land in disputes relates to Gata Nos.220, 221, 240, 1019, total land measuring 3.7250 hectares recorded in the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi, who was the mother of the private-respondent No.2. After the death of Smt. Saraswati Devi, the respondent No.2 Susheela Singh filed a mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of a Will dated 08.09.1986 said to have been executed by Smt. Saraswati Devi and the said mutation application came to be rejected on 05.02.2003 for want of prosecution. 5. Subsequently, the private-respondent No.2 filed another mutation application on 18.11.2014 almost after 11 years of the rejection of the first mutation application. It is stated that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party and without notice and without opportunity of hearing to contest the second mutation application it came to be allowed by means of the order dated 20.03.2015 which is available on record as Annexure No.5 in the instant petition. 6. In furtherance of the said order, the name of the private-respondent No.2 was incorporated in the revenue records. Later, when the original-petitioner came to know about the order dated 20.03.2015, he filed an application for recall. On the application for recall moved by the petitioner, the operation of the order dated 20.03.2015 was stayed. The private-respondent No.2 being aggrieved against the order dated 20.03.2015 whereby the mutation order passed in favour of the respondent No.2 was stayed, the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Faizabad, who allowed the revision by means of the order dated 03.11.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Ayodhya to decide the matter afresh on merits. 7. The private-respondent No.2 being aggrieved against the order dated 20.03.2015 whereby the mutation order passed in favour of the respondent No.2 was stayed, the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Faizabad, who allowed the revision by means of the order dated 03.11.2017 and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Ayodhya to decide the matter afresh on merits. 7. The contention raised by the petitioner before the Tehsildar was that once the first mutation application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.02.2003, it was not open for the Tehsildar to have entertained the subsequent mutation application and as such the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 20.03.2015 was bad. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances has assailed the order whereby the mutation application was allowed as well as the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 who rejected the application for recall and upholding the order of mutation has been challenged before this Court. 8. Shri Chhote Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation order passed in favour of the private-respondent No.2 was illegal inasmuch as once the first application for mutation had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 05.02.2003, the second application was not maintainable and thus allowing the second application and rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall was patently erroneous and as such is liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 04.04.2019 while entertaining the aforesaid writ petition had passed a detailed order and stayed the operation of the order dated 21.12.2018 and 20.03.2015 and relied upon the aforesaid two decisions reported in Fateh Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and Others, 2015 (126) RD 2 and Phagoo v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2018 (36) LCD 1254. It is urged on the strength of the aforesaid two decisions that the impugned orders are bad and are liable to be set aside after allowing the petition. 10. Dr. R.S. Pande, leaned counsel Senior Counsel along with Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what the petitioner has not indicated is the fact that there was a litigation between the mother of the private-respondent No.2 and the original petitioner Dhananjay Singh which was contested at two levels. 10. Dr. R.S. Pande, leaned counsel Senior Counsel along with Virendra Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what the petitioner has not indicated is the fact that there was a litigation between the mother of the private-respondent No.2 and the original petitioner Dhananjay Singh which was contested at two levels. It was submitted that the petitioner had contested the matter before the Revenue Courts wherein he had lost and later the matter was also contested before the Consolidation Courts and as such even in the consolidation proceedings, the rights of the private-respondent No.2 was upheld. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the private-respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the private-respondent No.2 wherein the decisions passed in proceedings before the Revenue Courts whereby the suit and the appeal preferred by Dhananjay Singh was dismissed on 14.11.2019. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.15236 of 1999 (Consolidation) wherein by means of the order dated 31.05.2019, the writ petition preferred by the original-petitioner was dismissed. The said order was further assailed by the petitioner before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 23.08.2019. 12. It is submitted that the said orders were neither mentioned in the writ petition nor the same were brought on record despite the petitioner knowing the aforesaid facts. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is submitted that the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 14. At the outset, it may be stated that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India usually does not interfere in matters relating to mutation proceedings as they are only summary in nature. No right, title or interest of any party is finally decided in such proceedings and any order of mutation passed in summary proceedings is always subject to determination of rights of the respective parties in regular proceedings. 15. No right, title or interest of any party is finally decided in such proceedings and any order of mutation passed in summary proceedings is always subject to determination of rights of the respective parties in regular proceedings. 15. In the instant case, what this Court finds is that the mutation order in favour of the private-respondent No.2 has been challenged only two grounds that this is the second mutation application while the first was dismissed on 05.02.2003 for non-prosecution and the second application for mutation had filed on 18.11.2014 almost after 11 years. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Fateh Singh (supra) and Phagoo (supra). 17. Before proceeding any further, it will be relevant to peruse the decisions which have been cited by the petitioner and it would be found that in the case of Fateh Singh (supra), it was held that upon the dismissal of the earlier mutation application, the subsequent application was not maintainable as the earlier proceedings were not disclosed. However, what this Court finds is that the case of Fateh Singh (supra) the party had contested the mutation proceedings through the tiers of the hierarchy of Courts as provided under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. In the instant case, the petitioner has assailed the orders of the Tehsildar straightway in a writ petition. 18. In the case of Phagoo (supra), the Court noted the fact that by not disclosing that the first application for mutation has been dismissed for non-prosecution and contesting the second application renders the application void and the Court also noticed that by non-disclosure of true and correct facts amounts to play fraud and the fraud nullifies all actions, hence, the order of mutation would be bad and the writ petition in such cases can be entertained. 19. Having considered the aforesaid two decisions as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, a distinguishable feature is that the petitioner in this case is also guilty of non-disclosure of material facts. While filing the petition on 11.03.2019, the petitioner did not disclose the fact that the petitioner and the private-respondent No.2 were already engaged in regular proceedings of title which came to be decided against the present petitioner. While filing the petition on 11.03.2019, the petitioner did not disclose the fact that the petitioner and the private-respondent No.2 were already engaged in regular proceedings of title which came to be decided against the present petitioner. He did not bring on record the orders passed by the Revenue Courts whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed against the order dated 22.10.2018. The petitioner also did not disclose that his earlier petition bearing Writ Petition No.15236 of 1999 (Consolidation) came to be dismissed on the ground of concealment on 31.05.2019 as the petitioner did not disclose regarding the disputes which were settled in consolidation proceedings and the petitioner had raised disputes almost after 56 years. The petitioner also could not explain as to why he did not disclose the judgments which were upheld against the petitioner on regular side. Thus, apparently the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he is not entitled to the benefit of exercise of discretion in his favour in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. There is another way to look at the entire issue. The petitioner has already lost the title proceedings even upto the stage of the Apex Court and indirectly he is assailing the mutation proceedings which are only of summary nature and follow the orders which are passed on the regular side. In this case, in the regular proceedings, right of the private-respondent No.2 - Susheela Singh has been upheld and in case if the mutation order assuming for the sake of argument is set aside, yet it will not give any benefit to the petitioner as his rights have already been adjudicated against him in regular proceedings. In such a situation, the land cannot remain in abstentia and the person with the best title is entitled to get his/her name duly recorded. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances where the rights of the petitioner has been adjudicated against him he has no right to assail the mutation proceedings and once the mutation application has been allowed in favour of the private-respondent No.2 who has been held to be the title holder, hence, there can be no error found in the impugned orders. 22. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances where the rights of the petitioner has been adjudicated against him he has no right to assail the mutation proceedings and once the mutation application has been allowed in favour of the private-respondent No.2 who has been held to be the title holder, hence, there can be no error found in the impugned orders. 22. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the clear view that the contention as well as the attempt of the petitioner to achieve something indirectly which he could not achieve directly as in the title proceedings in the regular forum he could not succeed and now filing the writ petition, he is not entitled to stall the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and consequently it is dismissed. 23. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.