A.P.SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vishal Khandelwal. The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
(2.) IN the proceedings before the original authority two competing wills were set up. One by the petitioner dated 15th February, 1983 which was unregistered, and the other which is registered by the contesting respondents dated 18.11.1981. The respondents succeeded in getting a mutation order in their favour. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed and the revision against the same also met the same fate. A restoration application was filed before the revising authority contending that the order had been passed ex-parte, as a future date had been fixed, which restoration application also came to be dismissed on 26.5.2011. Hence this petition. Sri Khandelwal submits that the revising authority has committed an error by not believing the date that had been fixed by the authority itself, inasmuch as, the application admittedly had been moved and had been directed to put up with the file on 25.4.2005. He submits that the date was noted and the petitioner had put his signature after the date was fixed for 26.5.2005. This aspect has been erroneously decided. Hence, the order dated 26.5.2011 deserves to be set aside.
(3.) APART from this on merits Sri Khandelwal submits that the revising authority in the impugned order dated 25th April, 2005 has indicated a very strange reasoning that since a writ petition under Article 226 is not entertainable in matters arising out of summary proceedings therefore a revision would also not be maintainable. Sri Khandelwal submits that this parity drawn by the revising authority does not appeal to reason and therefore the order dated 25.4.2005 cannot be sustained.;