The court emphasized that the writ petition arising out of the summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act cannot be entertained by the court, subject to certain exceptions.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena for the petitioners and Sri Gajendra Pratap appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Pleadings of the parties are complete and both the parties have agreed that the writ petition itself be finally decided.

( 2 ) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 21. 6. 2001 passed by the Board of Revenue. U. P. Lucknow. The facts of the cases as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are : one Smt. Barmati wife of late Sri Jag Mohan was recorded in the khatauni of village Barbadeeh and village Baliyari with regard to certain agricultural land Smt. Barmati died and after the death of Smt. Barmati, an application for mutation of their names was moved by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 through their father Ramakant Pandey under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Another claim was made by the petitioners claiming mutation on basis of a Will. Cases were consolidated and Case No. 45/131. Ravi Shankar v. Smt. Barmati was made the leading case. The objection was filed by the petitioners. Tahsildar, Robertsganj vide order dated 28. 3. 1985 rejected the application and objection of the petitioners and directed the name of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to be recorded in the records in place of Smt. Barmati as heirs of deceased. An appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of the Tahsildar dated 28. 3. 1985. The appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside the order of the tahsildar and remanding the case to the Tahsildar for deciding the case again. Against the order dated 16. 12. 1986 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Revision nos. 8 to 13 before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division. Varanasi. The said revisions were dismissed by the order dated 7. 2. 1990 by the Additional Commissioner who sent the files to Naib Tahsildar to decide the case as per direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Against the order dated 7. 2. 1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Revision Nos. 227 to 231 were filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the Board of Revenue which were ex parte decided on 19. 12. 1997 by the Board of Revenue but the said order was set aside on the application filed by the petitioners and thereafter the aforesaid revision has been allowed by the board of Revenue vide its order dated 21. 6. 2001 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. By the order dated 21. 6. 2001, Revision No. 61 of 1998-99 has also been rejected. Facts regarding which also required to be noted. The respondent No. 5 Deo Narain gave an application for mutation on 19. 9. 1995 before the Naib Tahsildar on basis of unregistered Will claimed to have been executed by Smt. Barmati. On the aforesaid application, Naib Tahslldar passed order on 2. 11. 1995 mutating the name of Deo Narain in place of Smt. Barmati on the basts of aforesaid will and by the aforesaid order, the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also expunged. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application to recall the order which application was rejected on 27. 4. 1996. In the meantime, a revision was filed against the order of the Naib Tahsildar dated 2. 11. 1995 before the Board of Revenue on which the Board of Revenue passed an order on 25. 1. 1996 directing the Collector to decide the matter after calling Tahsildar. The Collector in pursuance of the aforesaid order has decided the revision and set aside the order of the Tahsildar by his order dated 3. 2. 1999. The order of the Collector was passed on 3. 2. 1999 exercising the revision jurisdiction. Against the order dated 3. 2. 1999 passed by the Collector. Deo Narain has filed a Revision No. 61 before the Board of Revenue. U. P. , Allahabad, which has been decided by the Impugned Judgment dated 21. 6. 2001.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding entertalnabillty of this writ petition. Coun