JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri M.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The instant petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners have been rejected, as a result, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 10.05.2012 has been affirmed. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 21.08.1993 and order dated 14.10.1997. 3. In order to appreciate the chronology as to how the proceedings for mutation have come up to this Court, in this second round of litigation, arising out of mutation proceedings is being noticed first. 4. The dispute relates to the estate left behind by Panchu son of Banarsi. The present petitioners are the sons of Kumari @ Gujrati who is said to be the daughter of Panchu. The private-respondent is the successor of Nathai, who was the brother of Panchu. 5. The matter became contentious as Kumari @ Gujrati claimed the estate of Panchu based on a Will dated 06.09.1982. On the other hand, this was contested by the private-respondent (through his predecessor-in-interest) on the basis of another Will said to have been executed on 04.10.1979 by Panchu. 6. These two contesting Will were put in question and in the first round of litigation, the Tehsildar by means of its order dated 26.03.1985 found that the Will in favour of Nathai dated 04.10.1979 to be valid and rejected the claim of Kumari @ Gujrati. This order was assailed in an appeal at the behest of Kumari @ Gujrati which came to be allowed on 21.08.1993. 7. Against the same, the private-respondent had preferred a revision which was dismissed on 14.05.1997 and the matter was taken up in reference/revision before the Board of Revenue, who noticing the change in the Legislative Scheme, remitted the matter to the Court of Additional Commissioner by means of the order dated 20.02.1998 also leaving it open for the Additional Commissioner to hear the respective parties and decide the matter afresh. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Additional Commissioner once again decided the issue vide its judgment dated 10.05.2012 and ruled in favour of the private-respondent. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Additional Commissioner once again decided the issue vide its judgment dated 10.05.2012 and ruled in favour of the private-respondent. The petitioners being aggrieved approached the Board of Revenue, who dismissed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 which is under challenge before this Court. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are :- (i) It is urged that the evidence which was led on behalf of Kumari @ Gujrati whereby the Will in her favour was adequately proved has not been appreciated in a correct perspective, resulting in an incorrect finding. (ii) It has further been submitted that it is a clear case that the date of death of Panchu was 18.09.1982 and prior thereto Panchu had executed his Will. In order to buttress the aforesaid plea, it has been submitted that a certificate of doctor was also placed on record to indicate that Panchu had sustained injury and he was examined by the doctor on 16.09.1982 and it is urged that in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Panchu had died on 19.08.1982 as contended by the private-respondent. (iii) It has also been submitted that in further to substantiate the aforesaid fact regarding the death of Panchu, the Gram Pradhan concerned was examined, who had clearly indicated the date of death of Panchu as 18.09.1982. Even a certificate issued by the then Gram Pradhan was placed on record confirming the said date of death. Thus, it is urged that the court below have failed to appreciate the evidence led by the petitioners. (iv) Lastly, it has been urged that the reliance has been placed by the authorities on a certificate which has been issued on 19.07.1984 from the office of the Additional District Registrar and as per the said certificate, the date of death of Panchu was 18.08.1982. In respect of the said certificate no enquiry was done and the Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the date of death of Panchu was 18.08.1982 and not 18.09.1982. It is thus, urged that the orders impugned are bad. 10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the material on record. 11. It is thus, urged that the orders impugned are bad. 10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the material on record. 11. Needless to say that these proceedings are emerging from the mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is now too well settled to be disputed that the writ petitions against the orders passed in mutation proceedings are generally not maintainable. 12. This aspect has been noticed by the Apex Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue, 2022 SCC OnLine All 193 also had the occasion to review all the aforesaid case laws and while deciding the issue of maintainability of a writ petition from a mutation proceedings it categorically held that the writ petitions are not maintainable arising out of the mutation proceedings except in exceptional circumstances and the said exception have been carved out, which reads as under:- "40. Having regard to the foregoing discussion the exceptions under which a writ petition may be entertained against orders passed in mutation proceedings would arise where: (i) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; (ii) rights and title of the parties have already been decided by a competent court, and that has been varied in mutation proceedings; (iii) mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into questions relating to entitlement to succeed the property, touching the merits of the rival claims; (iv) rights have been created which are against provisions of any statute, or the entry itself confers a title by virtue of some statutory provision; (v) the orders have been obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, or by fabricating documents; (vi) the order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction; (vii) there has been a violation of principles of natural justice." 13. At the outset, it may be noticed that the entire submissions which have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners revolves around the realm of appreciation of evidence. At the outset, it may be noticed that the entire submissions which have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners revolves around the realm of appreciation of evidence. None of the exceptions which have been noticed hereinabove have been pointed out to exist in the instant case. 14. It has also been noticed that the parties have been litigating since 1982 and after four decades, this matter has came up on the mutation side. The findings recorded by the authorities are in summary proceedings. Needless to say that it does not bind the Court on the regular side dealing with the title. In such circumstances, noticing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners which is revolving around the appreciation of evidence in a summery proceedings and the actual controversy is whether Panchu died on 18.09.1982 or on 19.08.1982. In this regard, the authorities have preferred to rely upon the certificate of the Deputy Registrar to record that Panchu died on 19.08.1982, hence, in this view of the matter, he could not have executed his Will dated 06.09.1982 in favour of Kumari @ Gujrati. 15. Be that as it may, this issue can be agitated before the regular forum. Since these proceedings are arising out of mutation case and the mutation entry is for fiscal purposes and it does not decide any right, title or interest of any party. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 16. Needless to say that it shall be open for the parties to approach the Court for declaration of their title and if any order is passed from the regular Court, it shall bind the mutation Court. 17. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy.