JUDGMENT :

1. Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kadipur in an appeal filed under Section 210/211 of the Land Revenue Act against an order dated 12.07.2001 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dostpur, Sultanpur in Case No. 724, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the recorded tenure holder Kamal Nayan had executed a Will in favour of the opposite party no. 5 and thereafter the opposite party no. 5 had executed a sale deed in favour of Chhote Lal - the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Chhote Lal and the opposite party no. 5 both filed separate application for mutation, which were clubbed together. One Hari Shyam, brother of Opposite party no. 5 had filed objections against the application disputing the Will and claiming ownership in respect of half share on the basis of succession.

4. The application filed by Chhote Lal was dismissed in default on 18.06.2001. He filed an application for restoration on the same date, but the same was allowed on 09.07.2001. Although the application remained dismissed for default between 18.06.2001 and 09.07.2001, a compromise purportedly signed by Hari Shyam and Chhote Lal was filed on 27.06.2001, statements of Chhote Lal and an attesting witness of the Will were recorded on the same day.

5. The order dated 18.06.2001 was recalled on 09.07.2001 and on 12.07.2001, the Nayab Tahsildar passed an order allowing mutation in terms of the compromise between Hari Shyam and Chhote Lal. The compromise was filed and statements were recorded while the application was lying dismissed for default.

6. The opposite party no. 5 Ram Shyam filed an Appeal against the order dated 12.07.2001, stating that he did not get any notice of the application for restoration and the order has been obtained in furtherance of a conspiracy between the witnesses.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal by means of an order dated 03.10.2006, whereby he set aside the order dated 12.07.2001 and remanded the matter for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5.

8. Chhote Lal challenged the appellate order by filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 18.05.2023 on the ground that while allowing the appeal, the matter has been remanded to the Naib Tehsildar for passing a fresh order on merits of the case. As the parties will have an opportunity to present their case, there is no need for interference in the remand order.

9. The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of the Writ petition on the ground that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and the question of title is not decided in mutation proceedings. Therefore, the aforesaid order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Replying to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that title has been decided in the name of mutation in the present case.

11. A perusal of the mutation order dated 12.07.2001 indicates that it was decided on the basis of a compromise between Hari Shyam and the opposite party no. 5, when the application was lying dismissed in default. It merely records that on the basis of material available on record, it would be proper to enter the plaintiff’s name in respect of the property in question. Nothing has been stated in the order regarding title of the parties. While setting aside the aforesaid order, the appellant authority has merely remanded the matter for being decided afresh on its merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5 and the appellate authority has also not recorded any finding or satisfaction about title of the part