JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri G. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.639 of 2024; Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.642, 643, 644, 645 and 646 of 2024, Sri K. Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents and Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents in all the Writ Appeals. 2. These Appeals Nos.639, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646 and 964 of 2024 arise out of a common judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.22886, 19707, 19866, 22212, 22135, 14394 and 14514 of 2020 respectively. 3. The facts and also the contentions advanced being the same, all the aforesaid Appeals were being decided by this common judgment. The Writ Appeal No.639 of 2024 is taken as the leading appeal of the batch cases. 4. The Writ Appellants are the Writ Petitioners. 5. The main contest is between the writ petitioners/writ appellants, and one Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, 6th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024 (also 6th respondent in W.P.No.22886 of 2020) and also arrayed as different respondent number in the rest of the writ petitions/writ appeals. I. Facts: 6. One Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao had originally acquired property to an extent of Ac.27.00 in R.S.No.127/P of Nuzvid Revenue Village and Mandal in Krishna District in partition between his father Raja Meka Venkata Narasimha Apparao Bahadur and his brother Raja Meka Venkata Navaneetha Krishna Apparao Bahadur under partition deed, vide document No.4336/1957, dated 19.08.1957. Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao is said to have sold his property to an extent of Ac.27.00 to Inuganti Narasimha Rao and his brother Inuganti Ramachandra Rao through an unregistered agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970. Inuganti Ramachandra Rao died intestate, and as bachelor on 08.11.1975. His brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao being the sole legal heir succeeded to his estate and became the absolute owner and possessor to that extent of Ac.27.00. Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold that property to various persons (transferees) in bits and pieces during the year 1985. Inuganti Ramachandra Rao died intestate, and as bachelor on 08.11.1975. His brother Inuganti Narasimha Rao being the sole legal heir succeeded to his estate and became the absolute owner and possessor to that extent of Ac.27.00. Inuganti Narasimha Rao sold that property to various persons (transferees) in bits and pieces during the year 1985. The writ petitioners of the writ petitions/the appellants in writ appeals are either the purchasers from Inuganti Narasimha Rao or their vendors were the transferees from Inuganti Narasimha Rao under different document numbers of different dates being the registered sale deeds. Their names were recorded in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued. 7. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi (6 th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024) is the sister of Meka Venkata Rama Mohana Appa Rao. He died on 03.12.2014. Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi claimed to have acquired his estate under a Will dated 20.01.2014, she filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid (4th respondent in W.A.No.639 of 2024) being ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017 and claimed to be the absolute owner and prayed to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the vendors i.e., the writ petitioners. 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide Order dated 30.04.2018, allowed the appeal, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and the title deeds which were in favour of the writ petitioners and deleted their names in Land Record of Rights. The writ petitioners filed revision petitions, which were dismissed vide Order dated 21.07.2020 by the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 3rd respondent. Pursuant thereto, some of the respondents, including the official respondents were insisting and pressurizing the writ petitioners to vacate the land and attempted to dispossess by use of police force. 9. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the appellate Order dated 30.04.2018 and the revisional Order dated 21.07.2020, as also the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the writ petitioners. II. Common Order in Writ Petition(s): 10. 9. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the appellate Order dated 30.04.2018 and the revisional Order dated 21.07.2020, as also the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the writ petitioners. II. Common Order in Writ Petition(s): 10. The learned single Judge, by common Judgment and Order, dated 10.05.2024, dismissed all the writ petitions, observing that there was no infirmity or impropriety of jurisdiction in the impugned orders which did not warrant any interference, taking the view that there was a dispute with regard to the title and possession which could be established by the competent Civil Court, in comprehensive civil suit, and thereafter, they may approach the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (ROR Act). The learned single Judge further directed that the Order passed in Appeal No.19 of 2017, dated 30.04.2018 and the Revisional Order dated 21.07.2020 shall be implemented forthwith, if not already implemented. The learned single Judge further provided that, to enable the parties to approach the competent Civil Court,statusquoas on the date of the judgment shall be maintained with respect to the possession for a period of two months and any further interim relief or reliefs, may be prayed from the competent Civil Court. III. Submissions of the learned Counsels: i) For the Writ Appellants: 11. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Advocate and Sri V. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no appellate jurisdiction. They submitted that there was no order passed against the 6th respondent-Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi, so, filing straight away an appeal under Section 5B of the ROR Act, was not competent. The Order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer impugned in the writ petition was therefore without jurisdiction. They submitted that this plea was specifically raised in the writ petitions and argument was advanced, but no finding on that aspect has been recorded by the learned single Judge. Learned counsels further submitted that Section 4 of the ROR Act deals with regard to the acquisition of rights by making an application to the Tahsildar, upon which the Tahsildar is required to conduct an enquiry under the Act and the Rules and pass an Order. Learned counsels further submitted that Section 4 of the ROR Act deals with regard to the acquisition of rights by making an application to the Tahsildar, upon which the Tahsildar is required to conduct an enquiry under the Act and the Rules and pass an Order. But the 6th respondent did not make any application for amending or updating records of rights as provided by Sections 4 and 5 of the ROR Act and directly filed the appeal under Section 5B. Learned counsels submitted that the appeal under Section 5B lies only against an Order passed under Section 5A, but in the present case, there was no order passed under Section 5A. 12. Learned counsels further submitted that the 6th respondent claimed rights based on the alleged Will of 2014 from her brother, but based thereon, she could not question the mutation entries which were affected in the revenue records in the year 1985, based on the sale deeds executed by the petitioners’ vendors, in which Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, the original owner and brother of the 6th respondent had also signed as an attesting witness. So, after 20 years of the mutation effected, those entries could not be challenged and that too, the way, those were challenged. 13. Learned counsels for the writ appellants further submitted that even if based on the Will, any right was being claimed, the same required determination for which it was for the 6th respondent to have approached the Civil Court for determination of the right or title. The same could not be made in the proceedings under the ROR Act. So, the submission is that there was requirement for institution of the Civil Suit, and such a suit should have been filed by the 6 th respondent. However, the learned single Judge without considering this aspect directed the parties, i.e., the petitioners and the unofficial respondents to approach the competent Civil Court. They expressed that since the 6th respondent’s name has been directed to be mutated in the records, as the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, at the same time has also directed to implement the orders impugned in the writ petition forthwith, the 6th respondent would no longer approach the Civil Court and it is now for the writ petitioners to approach the Civil Court. 14. 14. Learned counsels for the appellants further submitted that the learned single Judge though extracted all the contentions raised by the counsels for the parties, but without making any specific finding on the contentions advanced, dismissed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge also failed to see that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to go into the question of title. So, based on the Will when title could not be determined by the revenue Court under the disputed case, based on the same, the earlier mutation entries existing in the record in favour of the writ petitioner could also not be changed. The Will required proof as per the provisions of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. They submitted that neither in appellate order nor in the revisional order there is any finding on the aspect of the proof of the Will even for the purposes of mutation. The said material aspect has also not been considered in the judgment under appeal, but direction has been issued to implement the orders impugned in the writ petition(s). ii) For the 6 th Respondent: 15. Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, submitted that the claim of the writ appellants is that Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao executed an agreement of sale dated 31.12.1970, but the same was not an agreement of sale. It was a promissory note. The 6th respondent is the sister of the said Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao and in her favour there is a Will. So, after the death of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, she made an application for mutation and to cancel the pattadar passbooks. He further submitted that the said Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao had made the declaration which was confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid in E.A.No.311 of 2015 in E.P.No.33 of 2011 in L.A.O.P.No.39 of 1990 dated 13.06.2016. As per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, in the said case, the 6th respondent had to surrender the lands equivalent to the standard holding of 1.122 hectors. As per the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, in the said case, the 6th respondent had to surrender the lands equivalent to the standard holding of 1.122 hectors. Copy of the common Order dated 13.06.2016 has been brought on record by memo to submit that in the said proceedings that Will in favour of the 6th respondent was believed and based there on E.A.No.311 of 2015 by the 6th respondent was allowed declaring her to be the legal representative of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, who died during the proceedings of E.P. 16. Learned counsel for the 6 th respondent has brought on record vide Memo dated 28.12.2024, the copy of the memo of appeal under Section 5B of the ROR Act to show that the 6 th respondent made an application before the Tahsildar, Nuzvid for mutating the name in respect of the properties left by Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao which devolved on her including Ac.27.00 cents and also asked to issue pattadar passbooks and title deed books in her name. But the said application remained pending. So, the 6th respondent had to file the appeal. He submitted that when the Order is not being passed by the competent authority on the application, and so no Order, then also the 6th respondent had the right to file appeal raising the grievance before the appellate authority. 17. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submitted that the Order passed by the Writ Court does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. He submitted that previously also one W.P.No.14411 of 2020 challenging the same Orders dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District was filed which was dismissed vide Order dated 20.08.2020, against which W.A.No.316 of 2020 was filed and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 09.11.2020 without interfering with the Order dated 20.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.14411 of 2020. iii) Submissions by the learned Govt. Pleader (Revenue): 18. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that an application under Section 4 was made by the 6th respondent, however, he adds that, the same was not decided and remained pending. He submitted that the appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act was maintainable. iii) Submissions by the learned Govt. Pleader (Revenue): 18. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that an application under Section 4 was made by the 6th respondent, however, he adds that, the same was not decided and remained pending. He submitted that the appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act was maintainable. He referred to para-10 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.22886 of 2020 to submit that the 6 th respondent-Smt.Kakumanu Sravanthi Devi filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer for mutation of records in her name. She also produced the general power of attorney issued by the family members in support of her claim. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted detailed enquiry and passed orders on 30.04.2018 in ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017 cancelling the mutations effected earlier. iv) Reply submissions of Appellants’ Counsels: 19. In reply, learned counsels for the writ appellants submitted that so far as LAOP.No.39 of 1990 is concerned, from the documents annexed, it is evident that, there, the point for consideration was with respect to registered Will dated 24.01.1994 by M. V. Samrajya Lakshmi,the mother of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, in his favour and on his death, when the 6th respondent filed E.A.No.311 of 2015, further consideration was with respect to that unregistered Will dated 20.01.2014 by Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao in favour of the 6th respondent but only for the purpose of declaration as legal representative of the deceased M. V. Samrajya Lakshmi. They referred to the point for consideration as framed in the common order dated 13.06.2016 which is as follows: “Whether the petitioner proved due execution of registered Will dt.24.1.1994 by M.V.Samrajya Lakshmi and an unregistered Will dt.20.1.2014 by M.V.Ram Mohana Apparao and the petitioner can be declared as legal representative of the deceased 1 st D.Hr. M.V.Samrajya Lakshmi?” 20. Learned counsel for the writ appellants submitted that the said order dated 13.06.2016 could not be made the basis to change the mutation entries already existing in favour of the writ appellants, for the reason that, in LAOP No.39 of 1990 the subject matter was different, the same was with respect to the declaration made by the mother of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao and consequently, to receive the compensation. The present subject matter is with respect to the property which Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao got in partition with his father and brother, and the petitioners were not parties in those proceedings. They further submitted that though in the said case, in the Order dated 13.06.2016 there is mention that the attestors of the Will dated 20.01.2014 were testified as PWs 3 and 4 therein but nothing is there in the judgment to show as to how the Will was proved by those attesters. 21. Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that if the Will or/and the Order in LAOP would not bind on the writ petitioners so as to deprive them of the property of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao with respect to which he executed agreement of sale, and the sale deeds from those persons which were executed during his life time, in which he also signed as attestors, along with the executors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such transfers in favour of the writ petitioners were valid and had the effect of conferring title, keeping in view the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, providing for transfers by ostensible owner. The submission is that if the title to the subject properties required determination based on documents in favour of the writ petitioners executed during the lifetime of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao to which, during his life time there was no objection raised nor any challenge made and based thereon when during his lifetime the mutation had been effected in the revenue records, after the death of Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao, on the appeal of the 6 th respondent based on the Will, those mutation entries could not be upset and in view of the revenue record entries if the claim was made based on Will it was for the 6th respondent to have filed the suit in the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. IV. Point for Determination: 22. The point that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the judgment under challenge suffers from any ‘illegality and calls for any interference’? 23. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. V. Analysis: 24. IV. Point for Determination: 22. The point that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the judgment under challenge suffers from any ‘illegality and calls for any interference’? 23. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. V. Analysis: 24. From the aforesaid, what becomes evident is, that the 6th respondent made an application to the Tahsildar, but the same remained pending and with the said averment, the 6th respondent filed the appeal under Section 5B of the Act 1971. 25. Challenging the Order dated 30.04.2018 of the Revenue Divisional Officer in ROR Appeal No.19 of 2017 and the Order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector in Revision Petition Computer No.598505, the first writ appellant/first writ petitioner in W.P.No.22886 of 2020 along with another filed W.P.No.14411 of 2020 which was dismissed. Learned single Judge in that writ petition was not inclined to entertain the case in the absence of the relevant documents which were relied upon by the Joint Collector while recording its findings. However, it was provided that the petitioners may approach the Civil Court and file a suit and while deciding the suit, the finding as recorded by the revenue authorities would not be binding on the Civil Court and an independent finding may be recorded by the Civil Court on the basis of the material brought on record. 26. The Order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.No.14411 of 2020 reads as under: “Challenging the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the 2 nd respondent-Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, this petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that the title and interest in the property has to be decided by the civil court, but, now the Tahsildar wants toevict the petitioners; therefore, petitioners have approached this court. It is tobe seen that the document which has been relied upon by the 2 nd respondent while recording finding in paragraphs 37 to 40 has not been produced before this Court for consideration. In absence of such document, this Court isnot inclined to entertain thiscase. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners may approach the civil court and file a suit; while deciding the suit, the finding as recorded by the revenue authorities would not be binding on the civil court and an independent finding may be reorded by the civil court on the basis of the material brought on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners may approach the civil court and file a suit; while deciding the suit, the finding as recorded by the revenue authorities would not be binding on the civil court and an independent finding may be reorded by the civil court on the basis of the material brought on record. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.” 27. Challenging the said Order in W.P.No.14411 of 2020, W.A.No.316 of 2020 was filed, which was also disposed of observing that instead of filing the Writ Appeal, the writ petitioners should have approached the Writ Court with those documents for review of the Order. The Writ Appeal was disposed of to avail the appropriate remedy, if so advised. 28. The Order dated 09.11.2020 in W.A.No.316 of 2020 is as under: “Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of private respondent No.5. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.14411 of 2020. By the said order, the writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it was observed that the petitioners may approach thecivil Court and file a suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade this Court that the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that the petitioners had failed to bring on record documents, which were relied upon by respondent No.2 while recording finding in paragraph Nos.37 to 40. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners that those documents are now available to the petitioners and those documents have been brought onrecord in the present appeal. On examining the impugned order, prima facie it is evident that the writ petition stood dismissed since the petitioners were having efficacious alternative remedy for moving the civil Court for deciding the issue. However, in the order a reference was made regarding non production of certain documents, which were referred by respondent No.2 in its finding recorded in paragraph Nos.37 to 40. Normally, in appeal this Court may not examine those documents, which were not placed before the writ Court. However, in the order a reference was made regarding non production of certain documents, which were referred by respondent No.2 in its finding recorded in paragraph Nos.37 to 40. Normally, in appeal this Court may not examine those documents, which were not placed before the writ Court. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that of course as per the order of the writ Court, the petitioners were required to approach the civil Court but even if they are aggrieved regarding rejection of the writ petition due tonon production of documents, which now they are having, the writ appellants instead of filing the present appeal would have approached the writ Court with those documents for review of the order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.If the appellants are so advised, they may avail appropriate remedy. There shall be no order as tocosts. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, ifany, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.” 29. Nothing has been brought on record that the writ appellants of W.A.No.316 of 2020 availed any appropriate remedy against the order dated 20.08.2020 in W.P.No.14411 of 2020 or against the Order passed in Writ Appeal No.316 of 2020. 30. We are of the view that after the dismissal of the W.P.No.14411 of 2020, though the parties name therein reflects that there were only two petitioners, against the same order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Joint Collector, and against which, the writ appeal was filed, but was also disposed of without interfering with the said order, there would be no scope for the writ appellants in the present writ appeals. In our view, the matter stands concluded to this effect that the writ appellants cannot challenge the Order of the Joint Collector dated 21.07.2020 in writ proceedings, but in case of grievance, the writ petitioners may approach the Civil Court. We are of the further view that the other writ petitioners, other than those two writ petitioners of W.P.No.14411 of 2020, might have or might not have filed the writ petitions previously, but the dispute is with respect to the property of the same person Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao and the case of all the writ petitioners/writ appellants is the same. Consequently, against the same order passed by the Joint Collector arising out of the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, a different view could not be taken. There cannot be conflicting orders against the same order impugned in the different writ petitions. 31. For that view of the matter, also, the writ petitions have rightly been dismissed, though we find that in the order of the learned single Judge there is no reference of Writ Petition No.14411 of 2020 and Writ Appeal No.316 of 2020. However, those Orders are not in dispute which have been brought on record vide Memo dated 04.11.2024 and against which nothing to the contrary has been filed by the writ appellants. 32. The learned single Judge has taken the view that the disputes involve determination of title which cannot be determined by the Revenue Court in the summary proceedings for mutation. In our view also, the dispute involves complicated questions of tile, particularly, in view of the submission advanced with respect to the nature of the documents being agreement of sale or promissory note by Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Apparao in favour of his alleged transferees as also the submission advanced from the appellants side that the sale deed by those alleged transferees of Meka Venkatara Ram Mohan Apparao would be binding and conveying/transferring the title to the writ petitioners, in view of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, being the transfer by an ostensible owner, with the attestation by its original owner. The question of proof of Will in favour of the 6th respondent would also require determination as also the effect of the Orders passed in E.A.No.311 of 2015 in E.P.No.33 of 2011 in LAOP No.39 of 1990, dated 13.06.2016, when the writ appellants are disputing the Will or/and that, that Will cannot confer title on 6th respondent for the submissions advanced. We are of the view that all those questions can be determined only on the civil side by the competent Civil Court. The learned single Judge has already issued directions directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The same was also the direction previously given in Writ Petition No.14411 of 2020, which Order was not interfered with in the writ appeal. 33. The learned single Judge has already issued directions directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The same was also the direction previously given in Writ Petition No.14411 of 2020, which Order was not interfered with in the writ appeal. 33. It is settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. 34. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr., (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraphs-8 and 9 as under: “ 8. So far as mutation is concerned, it is clear that entry has been made and mutation has been effected in revenue records by the Tahsildar on the basis of an application made by Respondent 5 herein and his name has been entered in record-of-rights on the basis of the will said to have been executed by Ratni Devi. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that by entering the name of Respondent 5 in revenue records, any illegality had been committed by the Tahsildar. It is true that no notice was issued to the appellants but the Tahsildar had taken the action on the basis of will said tohave been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of Respondent 5. The said order has been confirmed by the Collector as also by the Financial Commissioner. When the grievance was made against the said action by filing a writ petition, the High Court also confirmed all the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Act. We see no infirmity so far as that part ofthe order is concerned. 9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears inrecord- of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred onthe basis ofsuch entries. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears inrecord- of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred onthe basis ofsuch entries. Sofaras titletothe property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh [ (1993) 4 SCC 403 : AIR 1994 SC 1653 ] ). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.” 35. In Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 has held as under in paragraph-15: “ 15 It is a settled position of law that the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. At the same time, the effect of a declaratory decree to restore the property alienated to the estate of the alienor is that until and unless the alienees are able to convince the court that they have no subsisting interest in the property, the heirs of the alienor would be entitled to the benefits of the property as per the law of succession. The effect of the operation of the aforesaid declaratory decree would be to restore the land in dispute to the aforesaid estate of Bhana (deceased) and the succession would be deemed to have opened on 27-3-1973 when Bhana died. On his death, the estate left behind him including the land in dispute would devolve upon his heirs as pertheir entitlement and after the registered will dated 5-1-1973 has been up held by the High Court in RSA No. 933 of 1984 decided on 28-7-2004 [Banti v. Darshan Singh, RSA No. 933 of 1984, order dated 28- 7-2004 (P&H)] and attained finality, its consequence was to follow accordingly.” 36. We are of the further view that once the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court, the learned Single Judge was right in not considering the submissions on merits as any finding recorded on the merits of the submissions would have affected the parties in the final determination of the dispute by the competent Civil Court. We are also of the view that after dismissal of the W.P.No.14411 of 2020, as aforesaid and the writ appeal against the Order in the said writ petition, the writ petition, could not have been filed by the same petitioner, again, nor by the other writ petitioners against the same order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and making any observations on the merits of the submissions advanced may prejudice the rights of the parties before the Civil Court, if they so approach the said Court as the parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. 37. However, we are of the view that once the learned single Judge was of the view that those writ petitions deserved dismissal and dismissed the same, the direction to implement the orders passed by the Revenue Court impugned in the writ petitions could not have been issued. To that extent, we are of the view that, that direction deserves to be set aside while maintaining the rest of the judgment. There is another reason for setting aside such direction and that is that in the W.P.No.1441 of 2020 and W.A.No.316 of 2020 no such direction was issued by the Coordinate Bench. VI. Conclusion: 38. In view of the above consideration, we find no illegality in the common judgment impugned in these appeals in dismissing the writ petition(s) directing the parties to approach the Civil Court, but no direction could be issued to forthwith implement the orders impugned in the writ petition(s). VII. Result: 39. VI. Conclusion: 38. In view of the above consideration, we find no illegality in the common judgment impugned in these appeals in dismissing the writ petition(s) directing the parties to approach the Civil Court, but no direction could be issued to forthwith implement the orders impugned in the writ petition(s). VII. Result: 39. In the result, i) the dismissal of the writ petition(s) with direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court is maintained; ii) the direction to maintain status quo with respect to the possession of the subject land is also maintained, which shall continue for a further period of three months from today; iii) the direction to implement the Orders impugned in the Writ Petitions cannot be sustained and the said direction is set aside; iv) all the Writ Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms; v) No order as to costs; Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.