Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the Jild bandobast of 1872, plot Nos. 436, 437 and 438 situated in Mauza Kodar, Azmatpur, Mohal Tappa-Athausi, Pargana-Nizamabad, Tehsil-Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh were recorded in the name of Rambaksh, Parti Kadeem, Ahata Sthan-Sangat. With the passage of time, plot Nos. 251 and 252 were created from plot nos. 437 and 436. Plot nos. 248, 249, 251 and 252 were situated within Z.A. area. In the Jild bandobast of 1349 plot nos. 248/158, 249/168, 250 and 251 were recorded in the name of Rama Bibi widow of Govind Charan Khatri. After death of Rama Bibi, her son Dharamveer was recorded over the aforementioned plot nos. 248/158, 249/160, 250 and 251. Plot in dispute was purchased by predecessor in interest of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed executed on 13.01.1982 by recorded tenure holder Dharamveer. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed, name of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have been mutated in the revenue records and petitioners came in possession over the same. Contesting-respondent IInd set filed an application under Section 38/19 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 with the prayer that name of petitioners be expunged from plot in question and name of Guru Nanak Darbar-Respondent IInd set be recorded. On behalf of petitioners objections were filed in the aforementioned proceeding stating that proceedings are not maintainable as petitioners are recorded over the plot in question since long and the dispute regarding title cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceeding. Respondent No.4-Collector, vide order dated 25.9.2019 expunged the petitioners' entry along with others' entries in respect to the plot in dispute and ordered to record the name of respondent-IInd set/Guru Nanak Darbar. Against the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Collector, petitioners filed an appeal under Section 38(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 before Commissioner, which was registered as appeal No. 00360 of 2020 computerized Case No.C202015000000360. The aforementioned appeal was admitted by Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2022. Against the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, petitioner filed a revision before Board of Revenue under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, which was registered as revision No.1603 of 2022. Respondent No.2-Board of Revenue heard the aforementioned revision and vide order dated 24.11.2022 dismissed the petitioners' revision, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:

"(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders impugned dated 25.09.2019, 12.05.2022 and 24.11.2022 passed by respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2 respectively (copies of impugned orders are enclosed as Annexure Nos.6, 8 and 10 respectively to this petition).

(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in dispute."

3. Another revision No. 2335 of 2022 computerized case No.R20221506002335 filed by Sanjay and others against the same order of Collector and Additional Commissioner was dismissed by Board of Revenue, vide separate order dated 10.11.2022. Against the dismissal of revision, vide order dated 10.11.2022, Smt. Madhu Bala Sharma and ten others filed Writ B No. 2004 of 2023 before this Court which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2023 with observation that petitioners can establish their right in suit under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code 2006.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners subm