1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J N Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing along with Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, for the State-respondents and Sri Puneet Kumar Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 18.10.2021 and 05.02.2024 passed by the Tehsildar/Respondent no.5, Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, in Case No.00335/2016 (Sushila vs. Gangaram), under Section 34 of the U P Revenue Code, 2006 ( Code, 2006) the appellate order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/ Respondent no. 4, Bhanpur, in Case No. 603/2024 (Gangaram Mishra vs. Smt. Sushila Devi and others) under Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006, and the revisional order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration)/Respondent no. 3, Basti Region, in Case No. 1052/2024 (Gangaram Mishra vs. Sushila Devi) under Section 210 of the Code, 2006.

3. The dispute pertains to agricultural land situated at Village Chhitirgavan, Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, which is admittedly joint family property. The factual background of the case, as reflected from the pleadings, is set out herein below:

                  3.1     On 25.07.2016, the petitioner's brother, Tulsi Ram is stated to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.6, Sushila Devi. The petitioner claims that the transfer was made in excess of the vendor's undivided share and without prior partition.

                  3.2     On the same date, the petitioner's mother is stated to have executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner. Mutation proceedings were thereafter initiated on the basis of the sale deed.

                  3.3     By order dated 18.10.2021, mutation was allowed in favour of respondent no.6. The petitioner filed a recall application and objections. Subsequently, by order dated 05.02.2024, the Tehsildar reaffirmed the mutation entry.

                  3.4     The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 35(2) of the Code was dismissed on 18.07.2024, and the revision under Section 210 of the Code was dismissed on 04.10.2025.

                  3.5     Original Suit No.18 of 2017, filed by the petitioner and his mother seeking adjudication of title and challenging the sale deed, is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mutation orders are illegal as the sale deed was executed beyond the share of the transferor and without partition, and that the authorities failed to consider the Will and objections raised by the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the State-respondents and also counsel appearing for the private respondent contend that the impugned orders arise out of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature, do not decide title, and that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil court where the title dispute is already pending. It is further submitted that in the suit, the application seeking interim injunction has been rejected.

6. The legal position regarding the nature, scope and maintainability of writ petitions challenging orders passed in mutation proceedings under the Code, 2006 stands authoritatively settled by this Court in Smt. Kalawati v. The Board of Revenue (2022 (2) ADJ 456) , which has been followed consistently in subsequent decisions.

7. The principles laid down in Kalawati case (supra) may be restated as follows:

                  7.1     Summary and fiscal character of mutation proceedings: Proceedings under Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are purely summary in nature, undertaken for fiscal purposes such as updating revenue records and facilitating land revenue collection. They neither create, confer, extinguish nor determine substantive rights or title to property. Mutation entries do not constitute title documents or operate as deeds of conveyance.

                  7.2. No presumptive or evidentiary value on title: Entries made pursuant to mutation proceedings have no presumptive value whatsoever on questions of ownership, title or proprietary rights. Such entries are always subject to challenge and final adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court. Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 expressly stipulates that no order or entry under mutation proceedings shall debar any person from establishing his rights in a suit or other legal proceeding.

                  7.3     Writ jurisdiction ordinarily not invocable: This Court has held that writ petitions under Article 226 challenging mutation orders are generally not entertainable, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by instituting a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence, correct errors of fact or law, or interfere in summary fiscal proceedings. Judicial restraint is imperative to maintain the distinction between revenue record updation and substantive title adjudication.

                  7.4     Exceptions for writ interference: Despite the general bar, writ jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional circumstances where any of the following conditions is demonstrably satisfied:

                  (i) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;

                  (ii) rights or title already adjudicated by a competent civil court are ignored, varied or contradicted;

                  (iii) mutation directed not solely on basis of possession but on substantive merits of title or succession claims;

                  (iv) rights purportedly created in the mutation order in violation of express statutory provisions;

                  (v) order obtained through fraud, collusion, fabrication or material misrepresentation;

                  (vi) patent jurisdictional error, excess of jurisdiction or gross abuse of authority;

                  (vii) violation of principles of natural justice, such as non-issuance of notice or denial of hearing.

8. These principles have been reiterated and applied in a series of subsequent decisions, underscoring that writ interference against mutation orders is warranted only in rare and exceptional cases to prevent manifest injustice or jurisdictional excesses.

9. Applying the aforesaid principles enunciated in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra) to the facts of the present case, it would be noticed that:

                  (a)      Core dispute is one of title not essential for writ adjudication: The petitioner's primary grievance concerns the validity of the registered sale deed dated 25.07.2016 (allegedly executed by Tulsi Ram beyond his undivided share in joint family property without partition), the competing claim under the mother's Will dated 25.07.2016, and determination of respective shares in the joint family property. These raise complex questions of title, succession, Hindu undivided family law, validity of conveyance, and evidentiary appreciation, which are quintessentially fit for detailed trial before a civil court and wholly inappropriate for summary interference in writ jurisdiction.

                  (b)      Impugned orders purely fiscal, no title declaration: A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that they merely direct mutation/entry of name of respondent no.6 in revenue records on the basis of prima facie consideration of the registered sale deed and possession, strictly for fiscal purposes under Sections 34 of the Code, 2006. No conclusive or substantive declaration of title, ownership or proprietary rights has been made by any authority.

                  (c)      None of the seven exceptions laid down in the Kalawati case, are attracted: The petitioner has failed to demonstrate satisfaction of any recognized exception justifying writ interference:

                  (i)       No jurisdictional defect: The Tehsildar, SDM and Additional Commissioner were duly seized of jurisdiction under Sections 34, 35 (2) and 210 of the Code, 2006 to entertain and decide mutation matters.

                  (ii)      No prior civil court decree ignored: There exists no prior judgment or decree of any competent civil court declaring title in favour of the petitioner that stands contradicted.

                  (iii)     Mutation based on possession and sale deed, not title merits: The orders rest on possession evidenced by the registered sale deed, without entering into substantive adjudication of shares, partition or Will validity.

                  (iv)     No statutory violation: No mandatory statutory safeguard has been breached in the mutation process.

                  (v)      No fraud or misrepresentation pleaded/proved: There is no specific averment, much less material evidence, of fraud, collusion, fabrication of documents or material misrepresentation vitiating the orders.

                  (vi)     No jurisdictional error/excess/abuse: The record discloses no patent lack, excess or abuse of jurisdiction; authorities acted within competence.

                  (vii)    Natural justice duly observed: Notices were issued to parties at every stage, objections/recall applications entertained, documentary evidence (sale deed, Will, etc.) considered, and opportunities of hearing afforded before all the authorities.

                  (d)      Efficacious civil remedy available and pending: Original Suit No. 18/2017 challenging the sale deed, seeking title declaration and ancillary reliefs is admittedly pending adjudication before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti. The rejection of interim injunction therein further confirms that title merits necessitate full-dressed trial with evidence. Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 unequivocally protects the petitioner's right to establish title in the suit, uninfluenced by mutation findings.

                  (e)      Writ interference would undermine settled principles: Entertaining this petition would circumvent the pending civil suit, multiply proceedings, and erode the fiscal/summary nature of mutation as emphasized in the Kalawati (supra). Any apprehension that mutation entries may prejudice the civil court is baseless, as revenue records enjoy no evidentiary weight on title, and civil courts decide independently per law.

10. Taking into view the exposition of the legal position with regard to the summary nature of mutation proceedings in the case of Kalawati (supra), the complete absence of any exceptional circumstance wherein a writ petition may be entertained, and the availability of efficacious alternative remedy before the competent civil court, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the facts of the case.

11. The writ petition is dismissed as being not entertainable.

12. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue Original Suit No.18 of 2017, stated to be pending before the civil court, or institute any other appropriate legal proceedings for declaration of title/rights and consequential reliefs before the competent court/authority; any such civil or revenue court/authority shall independently adjudicate the matter strictly on merits in accordance with law, wholly uninfluenced by the impugned mutation orders (being purely fiscal in nature) or any observation contained herein; and all rights, contentions and pleas of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.