JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Heard Shri Savita Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record. 2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to the private respondents is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s) :- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 3 in arbitrary manner as well as impugned final order of the Revision No. 1378/2009- 10 Computerized No C201010000000170 Kindara and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner Judicial on 15.12.2015 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and impugned order dated 28.09.2013 for restoration application filed on 14.03.2013 without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, against the dismissed default dated on 18.05.2010 on non appearance of revisionists. The Certified copy along with Photocopy of impugned order dated 04.01.2025, impugned order dated 15.12.2015, impugned order dated 28.09.2013, are already annexed as ANNEXURE NO.1, ANNEXURE No.2 and ANNEXURE No.3 to this writ petition." 4. Vide impugned order dated 04.01.2025, the opposite party No.3/Additional Commissioner II (Judicial), Lucknow dismissed the Recall Application/Case No.1379/2009-2010, Computerized Case No.C201010000000170 (Kindara Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and affirmed the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Revision No.1379/2009-2010, under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others). 5. The subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings. 6. It is to be noted that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit. 7. Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. 8. 7. Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. 8. Mutation of a property in 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. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court. 9. Considered the aforesaid as also the following facts. (i) On 25.07.2005 based upon the compromise/settlement between Beerendra and Smt. Kindara widow of Shailendra, real brother of Beerendra, in mutation case no.105, under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act 1901'), the following order was passed:- (ii) After order dated 25.07.2005, quoted above, Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, executed sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (iii) After aforesaid order dated 25.07.2005 the petitioner preferred an application for recall of order dated 25.07.2005. This application was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2008 by the Tehsildar, Sandila, District- Hardoi. (iv) Vide order dated 26.06.2008 the Tehsildar declared the sale deed dated 06.05.2008 as void document. In mutation proceeding the sale deed cannot be declared as void document. (v) The order dated 26.06.2008 was set aside vide order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Revision No.1379/2009-2010 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) under Section 219 of the Act 1901. (vi) A perusal of the order dated 15.12.2015 indicates that the Revisional Authority considered the various aspects of the case including the fact that the order dated 25.07.2005 was passed on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties namely Beerendra, petitioner herein, and the real sister-in-law of the petitioner namely Kindara widow of Shailendra. (vii) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the application for recall of order dated 27.05.2005 passed in the mutation case was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, solemnized marriage after death of his brother. (vii) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the application for recall of order dated 27.05.2005 passed in the mutation case was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, solemnized marriage after death of his brother. However, the Tehsildar in absence of proof of marriage recalled the order dated 27.05.2005 which was favourable to Smt. Kindara who after this order sold the property vide sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (viii) Record also indicates that the petitioner had already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 that was executed by Smt. Kindara which is pending as O.S. No.1553 of 2024 (Beerendra Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar & others). (ix) It is to be noted that in the suit aforesaid Smt. Kindara has not been impleaded as defendant. 10. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also that the dispute in issue i.e. genuineness/validity of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and not in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned court would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.