Orders passed in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act are not binding upon the parties or upon the Courts in regular suits or proceedings. Such orders are subject to the decision by the Courts on the regular side. A party aggrieved by such an order may file a regular suit before a Court of the competent jurisdiction for declaration of his title. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of such orders is not maintainable.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20. 2. 1998 passed by the Assistant Collector (1st Class) Meerut, setting aside the orders dated 18. 6. 1997 and 21. 6. 1997 and remanding the case to the Tahsildar, Meerut, to decide afresh after affording an opportunity, of hearing to the parties in accordance with law and the order dated 9. 2. 1999 dismissing the revision filed under Section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act passed by additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.

( 3 ) IT appears that petitioners filed 2 suits under Section 229b of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act (for short the Act) for declaration that they were co-tenure holders in the land tn dispute, their share being 1/6 each. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was ancestral seer and Khudkasht land in the hands of Devi Singh, petitioners had been born before abolition of Zamindari in the State. Consequently. being the members of Joint Hindu Family, they acquired rights in the land in dispute by birth. The validity of the sale deed dated 15. 4. 1982 executed by Devi Singh in favour of respondent No. 3, was also challenged. Suits were contested by respondent No. 3 and were ultimately dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decrees dated 24. 1. 1986. Challenging the validity of the said decrees, petitioners filed appeals before the commissioner. The said appeals were also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondent No. 1, by his judgment and decrees dated 27. 6. 1986. Thereafter, petitioners filed two second appeals before the Board of Revenue which also met the same fate and were dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 8. 7. 1994 and the decrees passed by the trial court was restored. Thereafter the petitioners earlier approached this Court and filed two writ petitions, i. e. . Writ petition No. 29148 of 1994 and 29149 of 1994. The said writ petitions were also dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 14. 9. 1994. This Court while dealing with the case on merits observed as under : "in my opinion, the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in expressing its agreement with the finding of the trial court. Further, the land in dispute was partitioned during the consolidation and share of Devi Singh was recorded in his exclusive name. The petitioners were admittedly major at that time but they never raised any claim with regard to the same and in consolidation the Chak was carved out in the name of Devi Singh. In view of this, the suit has also been rightly held to be barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In my opinion, petitioners have failed to establish their claim with regard to the land in dispute on the pleadings raised by them. " this Court in the concluding paragraph of the Judgment also observed as under : "learned counsel for petitioners then submitted that the finding in respect of the Will may prejudice the claim of petitioners in demanding any share in the property left by Devi Singh. However, in my opinion, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel is not justified, as substitution on the basis of the Will has been made during pendency of the second appeal only for carrying the proceedings further and it cannot operate as res judicata or come as a bar against the petitioners in any other proceedings. "

( 4 ) FROM the abovenoted observations, it is clear that this Court provided protection to the petitioners with regard to the property, if any, left by Devi Singh if he has died intestate. The judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14. 9. 1994 became final. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the respondent No. 3 applied for the mutation of her name in the revenue papers under Section 34 of U. P. Land