Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.N. Saxena, for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Malviya, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 13th June, 2003 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by Board of Revenue allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 (Fazal Ahmad) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the order dated 8th July, 2003 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners for reviewing the order dated 13th June, 2003 of the Board of Revenue. The orders passed by Board of Revenue in revision arose from proceedings of mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The application for mutation dated 16.9.1996 was filed by respondent No. 2 praying for expunction of the name of the petitioners from the land in dispute on the basis of the order passed by Civil Court in favour of respondent No. 2, which was affirmed up to the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 12.1.1987. The respondent No. 2 in the mutation application stated that the grove in dispute was purchased by respondent No. 2 on 11th April, 1968 in a Court auction sale, which was confirmed. The validity of the Court auction sale was challenged by the petitioners in the Civil Court on the basis of two sale-deeds of the year 1957 and 1959 which was decided in favour of respondent No. 2 up to the Supreme Court on 12.1.1987. The application further stated that on proceedings taken by respondent No. 2 in the Civil Court for giving Dakhal of the grove in question, orders were passed on 15.12.1995 to give possession and possession was handed over by the Amin of the Civil Court to respondent No. 2 on 16.12.1995. The application prayed that the names of Jagdish Narain and Jugal Kishore recorded in the revenue records on the aforesaid grove be expunged and the name of respondent No. 2 be recorded. The said mutation application has ultimately been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment against which present writ petition has been filed. It is well settled that mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceedings which do not decide any title of the party and the writ petition challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings generally are not entertained by this Court, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as mentioned hereinafter, and the chequered history of the case it is appropriate that submissions of Counsel for the parties be considered.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this writ petition are; in pursuance of a decree passed in Suit No. 21 of 1946 (Lal Hajari Lal v. Abdul Hai), the grove in dispute was auctioned on 11th April, 1968 in favour of respondent No. 2. On the basis of two sale-deeds dated 22.12.1957 and 21.3.1969, an objection was filed by the petitioners and their predecessors in interest against the auction sale taking the case that they have purchased the grove in question by the above mentioned sale-deeds from the heirs of Abdul Hai which cannot be auctioned in pursuance of the decree passed in Suit No. 21 of 1946. The case of the petitioners further was that the grove was not subject-matter of Suit No. 21 of 1946 and the same could not have been auctioned. The objection was rejected on 16.11.1970. A suit being Suit No. 114 of 1970 was filed by the petitioners praying for declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of the grove and the said grove is not capable of auction in execution Case No. 4 of 1968 in pursuance of decree in Suit No. 21 of 1946. An injunction was also sought against defendant (respondent No. 2) that he be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid decree. The suit was contested by respondent No. 2 and was ultimately dismissed by the Civil Judge, Jhansi vide its judgment and order dated 24.2.197