M.N. Bhandari, J.

These two writ petitions have been taken together, as there exists conflicting orders of the Board of Revenue between same parties and in regard to the same issue.

Brief facts of the case :

2. In writ petition No.7397/2011, mutation of land was opened in favour of Kalu and others. A challenge to it was made by the petitioner Narsingh Ram by maintaining an appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioner/s preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner who allowed it with remand of the case to Tehsildar for a decision afresh. It was challenged by the non-petitioner/s and appeal therein was allowed by the Board of Revenue.

3. In the writ petition bearing No.8871/2012, mutation of the land was made in favour of the non-petitioners Narsingh Ram based on the adoption deed. The mutation of the land in favour of Narsingh Ram was challenged by Govinda s/o Kalu and others by maintaining an appeal before the SDO Court, which was dismissed. Govinda s/o Kalu and others preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which was allowed. A revision petition was preferred by Narsingh Ram has been allowed by the Board of Revenue.

4. The Board of Revenue has passed orders in conflict on one and the same issue and, thereby, mutation of the land opened in the name of Narsingh Ram is also maintained and, at the same time, for Govinda s/o Kalu and others thus both the parties have challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue in two different writ petitions. The facts aforesaid are quite shocking for the reason that both the orders are by the Board of Revenue and by noneelse but the same Presiding Officer.

5. The mutation in favour of Narsingh Ram is based on adoption deed, whereas, mutation in favour of Govinda s/o Kalu and others was based on succession.

6. Learned counsel for Govinda s/o Kalu and now Pappu Lal s/o Govinda in the writ petition No.8871/2012 submits that registered adoption deed has not been executed after following the provision of law, as signature of one of the parties does not exist. It is further submitted that Narsingh Ram had executed relinquish deed denying adoption and, thereby, property was rightly mutated in favour of Govinda s/o Kalu and others, thus order of Board of Revenue against them deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Narsingh Ram in the writ petition No.7397/2011 submits that a registered adoption deed was executed after complying the provisions and, otherwise, challenge to it cannot be made in the fiscal proceedings of mutation. Govinda s/o Kalu and others could have maintained a suit for cancellation of registered adoption deed. It is further submitted that registered adoption deed cannot be cancelled save by the process of court. A suit for cancellation of adoption deed can be filed. Accordingly, relinquishment of adoption deed carries no meaning otherwise, these aspects cannot be decided in fiscal proceedings of mutation, which are summary in nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Board of Revenue against him deserves to be set aside.

8. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It is quite surprising that one and the same Presiding Officer of the Board of Revenue has taken divergent view on one and the same issue and between the same parties. In one case, mutation of land in favour of Narsingh Ram, based on adoption deed has not been accepted, rather, Narsingh Ram has been directed to file a suit for declaration for his adoption deed. At the same time, in the case of Govinda s/o Kalu and others, a direction has been given for filing a suit for cancellation of adoption deed to challenge mutation of land in favour of Narsingh Ram.

10. It is not in dispute that a litigation before this Court is arising out of the mutation proceedings, which are fiscal in nature. It does not decide substantial rights of the parties. The proceedings therein are considered to be summary in nature thus can