Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri A.K. Dwivedi holding brief of Shri P.K. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, who has filed a caveat on behalf of respondent No. 3

2. This petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and is directed against the order dated 20.10. 2009 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 10 of 2012-13. By this order, the Board of Revenue has set aside the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts and has remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision of the suit, on merits, after framing issues.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parties had earlier litigated before the mutation Courts on the basis of wills in their favour. This matter travelled up to the High Court and was finally decided by means of the order dated 12.3.2008 passed in the writ petition No. 13257 of 2008 filed by Smt. Shubhawati, who is arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the instant writ petition. The will dated 21.2.1994 in favour of the petitioner, Mahant Ramashanker Bharti, was accepted by the mutation Courts, which orders were challenged by means of the writ petition aforementioned.

4. In the last paragraph of the order of this Court in writ petition No. 13257 of 2008, it has been observed that “it is always open to the petitioner to file a civil suit or to take proceedings under the Indian Succession Act to declare the will dated 21.2.1994 was not executed in accordance with law or that it is forged document. This writ petition against the order passed in summary proceedings in which the findings do not operate as estoppel or res-judicata in a suit in the competent Court does not call any interference”.

5. Relying upon the above quoted observations, the trial Court as also the first appellate Court, dismissed the declaratory suit filed by the contesting respondent holding it to be not maintainable before the revenue Court.

6. The Board of Revenue in Second Appeal, set aside these orders and remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh, after framing issues, as already noticed above.

7. Insofar as the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the declaratory suit before the Revenue Court was barred in view of the observations of this Court in writ petition No. 13257 of 2008, it may be observed that the High Court while deciding the writ petition No. 13257 of 2008 was not called upon to decide the question as to what was the proper forum which could grant the relief claimed by the petitioner therein. The observations made were mere passing observations and appear to have been made only with a view to show that there was no necessity of entertaining the writ petition as the findings recorded in the orders passed by the mutation Courts do not operate either has estoppel or res-judicata. It is the settled legal position that mutation proceedings are purely fiscal in nature and do not determine the title of the parties. Besides, such proceedings are summary in nature.

8. As regards the observation in the judgment dated 12.3.2008 that a civil suit or proceedings under the Indian Succession Act may be drawn for declaring the will to be a forged and fabricated document, it may be pointed out that a will can always be proved in collateral proceedings. There is no dispute that the will pertains to agricultural land and, therefore, its legality or otherwise can be examined in a suit for declaration, filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

9. It has been held in the judgement reported in (1989) 1 SCC 272, that an observation on a question, which did not arise for consideration in a case is only obiter dicta and not binding.

10. In State of Haryana v. Ranbir, (2006) 5 SCC 167, it has been held that observations that are in the nature of an expression of a viewpoint or sentiment have no bindi