JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar, advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.V. Jaiswal alongwith Sri G.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Milak, Rampur/respondent no.2 and also the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad/respondent no.1 in proceedings arising out of Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901[the Act, 1901].

3. In terms of the order dated 28.01.2008 passed by respondent no.2 the appeal filed by respondent no.4 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the court below leaving it open to the parties to raise their contentions on merits of the case.

4. The revisional court has specifically recorded a finding that the mutation court had erred in rejecting the objections filed by the respondents without due consideration thereof and in view of the same the order passed in the appeal remitting the matter for consideration afresh did not suffer from any error. It has also been recorded that the order passed in the appeal being simply an order of remand for a fresh decision on merits after consideration of the maintainability of the objections leaving it open to the parties to place all contentions on the merits of the case there was no occasion for the revisional court to interfere in the matter.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any material error or irregularity in the orders passed by the courts below so as warrant interference.

6. This apart the counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to give any satisfactory response to the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 are summary in nature and ordinarily a writ petition against such orders is not entertained.

7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings.

8. In the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors. [AIR 1957 All 205] notice was taken of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with the orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue was whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:

“3. ...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...”

9. The question with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings fell for consideration in the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors., 2002 (1) AWC 169 and it was held that the High Court does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that mutation proceedings are only summarily drawn on the basis of possession and the parties have a right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit. The observations made in the judgment are extracted below:

“17. This Court has consistently taken the view as is apparent from the decisions of this Court referred above that writ petition challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings are not to be entertained. To