Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is by the Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 458 of 2015. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

2. Through Annexure A/23 proceedings dated 21.11.2014, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue); for short, 'the SDO'; proceeded to review the earlier order issued by that officer on 25.10.2014, which is Annexure A/17. For that purpose, the SDO was granted permission by the Collector, which is a statutory exercise required to be carried out to satisfy the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959; for short, ‘the Code’. The Appellants challenged the said proposal of the SDO before the learned Single Judge through the writ petition, fundamentally projecting certain facts situation referable to earlier proceedings touching the lands in question. We would make requisite reference to those facts as we proceed with this judgment.

3. It appears that the proceedings were initiated to include the land in question in the register of the "Wajib-ul-arz" lands in terms of Section 242 of the Code. Those proceedings, initiated sometimes in 1991, was carried forward and even subjected to two rounds of appeal. That ultimately led to a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was decided as per Annexure A/6, order of 31.12.2001 holding that the lands cannot be recorded as Wajib-ul-arz.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioners applied for mutation of the land in their names stating that they are Bhumiswami of the land by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Code. It appears that writ petition was also filed seeking directions to conclude those matters. The Tahsildar, following directions by the Collector, issued Annexure A/9 ordering mutation in the name of the Petitioners and for correction of the records. That was challenged by the Sarpanch of Village-Deopuri before the SDO, who in turn set aside the mutation order, as per Annexure A/11 dated 30.04.2011 making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011). The Appellants carried that matter to the Commissioner in the form of a revision after first moving the Apex Court seeking certain clarifications. The net effect of Annexure A/12 and the subsequent order issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA No. 16 of 2011 is that the Appellants have to seek their remedy from the appropriate authority in accordance with the decision of the Board of Revenue. We may pause here to say that much was attempted to be stated during the submissions by learned counsel for both the sides as to what would be the effect of the use of certain phrases in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though it was attempted to be projected that there is a direction to give effect to the decision and the directions of the Board of Revenue, the fact of the matter remains that all that the Board of Revenue had done through Annexure A/6 order dated 31.12.2001 was to hold that the lands cannot be recorded as "Wajib-ul-arz". There was no consequential direction, as such, in the operative portion of the said decision of the Board of Revenue. We think that, having regard to the nature of the order that would ultimately be passed herein, it would be appropriate for us to dissuade from stating any further on the contents and quality of the decision of the Board of Revenue rendered through its Annexure A/6 order dated 31.12.2001.

5. As regards the proceedings for mutation which stood against the Appellants with the allowing of the Sarpanch's appeal, the matter went up to the Commissioner before whom the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also produced. The Commissioner, making reference to the orders of the Apex Court, remitted the matter with direction to pass appropriate orders in the light of the clarification available through the Supreme Court's order as regards the applicability of the Jagpal Singh's case. Thereupon, the