The orders passed in regular title proceedings under section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act are final and binding, and mutation courts are bound by these orders.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue.

2. The dispute in the writ petition relates to land which was recorded in the name of one Gokul. The petitioner is the maternal grandson of Gokul and he claims on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by Gokul. On the basis of the said will, the petitioner was mutated over the land in question after the death of Gokul, vide order dated 7.8.2002.

3. A recall application was filed by Smt. Phoolwati, aunt of the petitioner. The recall application was allowed on 31.1.2005. Subsequently on 10.2.2005, an order was passed that the name of the petitioner be expunged and the name of respondent, Phoolwati and her sister Janki Devi (mother of the petitioner) be recorded.

4. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a revision No. 151 of 2005 before the Additional Commissioner. This revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra, Division Agra vide order dated 22.1.2007 and the mutation, order dated 7.8.2002 in favour of the petitioner was maintained.

5. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner was subjected to revision by the respondent Phoolwati. This revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.2.2014 and the appellate order has been set aside. The effect of the order is that the respondent and her sister Janki Devi are to be recorded over the land in question. Hence this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the reasoning that during the consolidation operations in the unit, the names of the respondents. Phoolwati and her sister Janki were ordered to be recorded over the land in question in proceedings under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that the consolidation operations in the unit have closed in the year 1998. The petitioner never challenged the order passed by the consolidation Courts and, therefore, his claim is barred by section 49. Moreover, the order passed by the consolidation Courts has become final and no order to the contrary can be' passed in mutation proceedings.

7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as also the proceedings under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are summary in nature and, therefore, the order passed by the consolidation authorities are not binding upon the mutation courts.

In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the decision reported in

1. Ghashitu v. Assistant Custodian Enemy Property and others 2013 (121) RD 851 (HC), prior to 1958 amendment.

2. Radhey Shyam and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others 2010 (5) ADJ 308 .

3. Smt. Bhuni v. Sunder and others 1973 RD 201.

8. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whether the bar of section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will apply over all other proceedings on the principle of estoppel, acquiescence or waiver has been referred to the Larger Bench and is still pending consideration.

9. The third submission raised that there was no adjudication before the consolidation Courts and, therefore, the bar of section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act would not come into play. He has further submitted that in proceedings under section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act only succession had been recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the name of all the heirs of deceased Gopal, namely, respondent No. 4 and Smt. Janki, mother of the petitioner and, therefore the Bar of section 49 was not attracted.

10. Upon a consideration of the submissions made by the l