Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Munesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

2. Present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.4.2001 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Bilari, Moradabad and order dated 26.3.2002 passed by respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector-1st Class, Bilari, Moradabad and order dated 16.1.2017 passed by Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition that the present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and as such this writ petition would not be maintainable. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow, 2013 Law Suit (All) 707 and order dated 8.9.2015 passed in Writ B No. 50844 of 2015, Vibhuti Narayan Singh and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 6 others, relevant extract whereof is quoted as under:

“In any case the writ petition is arising out of the proceeding under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act and this Court has consistently taken a view that writ petition is not maintainable in such cases. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Vishwanath and others v. Board of Revenue, 2004 (4) AWC 3141, Madhav Pandey v. Board of Revenue, 2002 (2) AWC 1311 and Bindeshwari v. Board of Revenue, 2002 (1) AWC 498. In those cases this Court has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench in Jaipal (minor) v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1956 ALJ 807, in which it has been held that orders passed under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act cannot be challenged in the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid settled view of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2002 (1) AWC 169 and Puran Singh v. Board of Revenue, 2004 (1) AWC 853, to contend that the present writ petition is maintainable and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the case falls within the exceptions carved out by this Court in the above noted two cases.

5. The law laid down by Hon’ble Division of this Court in Jaipal (supra) as noted in the extract of the judgment quoted above in paragraph 11 of Lal Bachan (supra) is quoted as under :

“11. 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 of Jaipal Minor v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, 1956 ALJ 807. 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