Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed by Mohammad Ismaiel @ Kallu for quashing the order dated 16.11.2012 by which review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and also for quashing the order dated 8.7.2008 by which revision filed by Opposite Party No.7 Smt. Sabira has been allowed and order of Additional Commissioner was quashed and order of S.D.O. dated 25.6.1999 and order of Tehsildar dated 5.8.1996 was upheld.

Perusal of record reveals that after death of Noor Mohammad, her alleged widow Sabira and one another Mohammad Ismaiel @ Kallu moved an application for mutation. Application of Mst. Sabira was allowed and that of Mohammad Ismaiel @ Kallu was rejected. Against that order, an appeal was filed by Mohammad Ismaiel @ Kallu which too was rejected. Against that order, a revision was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner and both the orders of lower courts were quashed. Feeling aggrieved Mst. Sabira again filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 8.7.2008. Later on a review petition was filed by the petitioner which too was rejected.

Opposing the writ the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that the writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act which is a summary proceeding and the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy available and he can file a suit under Section 229(b) U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act to claim his title.

In the case of Jai Narain Ojha Vs. Gauri Shanker and Others 1999 (17)LCD 918, Apex Court has held that:

"question of title is not conclusively decided in mutation proceedings and parties can get a judgment from the appropriate Court on question of their title over disputed property. In the case of Ram Pratap Tiwari and another Vs. Board of Revenue and Others(Supra) this court has held that it is open for the petitioner to question the validity of the will deed executed in favour of the respondent no.3 before the Civil Court and thus he can get adjudicate his right to title before Civil Court because as has been held by the Division Bench of this case herein before, the entry in the revenue records made under Section 34 does not confor any title to the land in question."

In the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue,U.P., Lucknow and Others 2002(20)LCD 115 this court has held that :

"12. This Court had occasion to consider the scope and nature of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act in several decisions. The Division Bench of this Court considered the controversy in case reported 1956 Allahabad Law Journal Page 807 Jaipal Minor V. the Board of Revenue U.P.Allahabad and others. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment held that it has been the consistent practice of the High Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The Division Bench laid down the law in following words :

" The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue in passing this order exceeded its jurisdiction. It has however, been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question, and his right to establish his title thereto is expressly reserved by Section 40(3) of the Act. The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. This petition does n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document