Courts do not interfere with orders passed by Revenue Courts under the Land Revenue Act in cases solely concerned with mutation of names in the record of rights.

A N. Varma, J.

1. This petition is undeniably directed against the order passed in a case arising out of mutation proceedings. Right from the case of Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, 1957 Allahabad 205 the consistent view taken by this Court is that this court does not under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the orders passed by the Revenue Courts under the Land Revenue Act in cases which are concerned solely with the mutation of names in the record of rights.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the Board of Revenue has while disposing of the revision made observations with regard to the title of the petitioner over the disputed land which are bound to adversely effect the claim of the petitioner that he may set up in a regular suit.

The apprehension is unfounded as any observations made by the Board of Revenue while disposing of the impugned proceedings touching upon the title of the petitioner shall be subject to the decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, therefore, the petitioner files a suit he will not be in the slightest degree prejudiced by any finding or observation made by the Board of Revenue.

3. With these observations the petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available by way of a regular suit in the court of a competent jurisdiction. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within two days.

Petition dismissed.