S.K Singh, J.:— By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 19.12.1986 by which revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that proceedings are under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act which is summary in nature. There appears to be a dispute about the property of one Nanku, who died. On the death of Nanku, referred above an application for mutation was filed by the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are heirs of Nanku. Another application, was filed by respondent No. 4 claiming mutation of his name on the same ground that he is the son of Nanku and is entitled to be mutated. This dispute engaged attention of the Tehsildar. After the evidence, finding was returned in favour of the petitioners to the effect that they are sons and, therefore, they are entitled to be mutated. On filing the appeal by the opposite parties, S.D.O deferred with the finding of the Tehsildar and gave finding in favour of the opposite party. Thus, the judgment of the Tehsildar was set aside.
3. On filing the revision by the petitioners learned Additional Commissioner without going into the merits of the matter on the technical ground that proclamation has not been properly issued and notice has not been properly served on the Chairman of Land Management Committee etc. recommended the matter to be remanded back for fresh trial by the Trial Court. Board of Revenue by disagreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner examined the claim of the parties on merits and thus by giving a finding that mother of both parties appears to have not married validly with Nanku restored the order of the S.D.O Thus, being aggrieved by order of the Board of Revenue petitioners are before this Court.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, for the reasons recorded in this order this Court need not to go in the matter in full detail. Admittedly proceedings are of mutation under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act which is summary in nature. There cannot be any manner of doubt that mutation Courts are not possessed, with the powers and competence to deal with the matter like a regular Court. For adjudication of various factual dispute touching with the title of the parties the remedy of either of the parties is to approach the competent regular Court by filing suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act which is meant for declaration of the title of the parties. So far the case in hand is concerned on a perusal of the judgment of the Court below it is clear that first Court, the Appellate Court and the Board of Revenue decided the question of title, as claimed by the parties by recording a finding in respect to the disputed question of fact that who is the son of Nanku. Disposal of the controversy in this manner is beyond the competence of the mutation Courts. Another development appears to have taken place in the meantime. Petitioners have filed copy of the plaint of a suit which is said to have been filed by the respondent No. 4 under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act and the order of the Trial Court dated 22.1.2002 by which the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. At this stage this Court is not in a position to give a finding that whether the order passed by the Trial Court on 22.1.2002 dismissing the suit filed by the respondent No. 2 for want of prosecution had become final or that order has been recalled.
5. Be as it may, as regular suit appears to have been filed by the opposite party, it will be concern of the Tehsildar to examine the matter in that light that whether the present proceedings are to be continued or they are to be dropped on that score giving liberty to the parties to get their rights adjudicated in the competent Revenue Court. Learned Additional Commissioner had made a recommendation for remand of the mater to the Trial Court for fresh trial. Board of Revenue appears to have exceeded in its jurisdiction in deciding the matter on merits and in deciding the rights and title of the parties. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that order of the Board of Revenue needs interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.1986 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Matter is sent j?ack to the Trial Court for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law keeping in mind the scope of the present proceedings and the effect of filing of the suit, if any, by the opposite party as has been demonstrated by the petitioner, after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. As the matter is old, Trial Court will expedite the disposal at his end and thus he will decide the matter without allowing any adjournment to either of the parties unless it is required for very compelling reasons.
7. Petition Allowed.