R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) The present petition arises out of the proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, for short 'the Act' and is directed against the order dated 16.5.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It was urged that against the order passed under Sections 33/39 of the Act, either by the trial Court or by the revisional court, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable inasmuch as the said proceedings are summary in nature and in those proceedings the titles of the parties are not decided. The person or party aggrieved by the order passed in the said proceedings has an alternative remedy by filing a suit for ventilation of his grievance and for appropriate relief. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions in Brahma Deo and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1986 R.D. 302., Mohar Tiwari v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, 1990 R.D. (H) page 20., Shah Mohammad Shabbir Ata v. District Judge, Lucknow, 1984 A.W.C. 928. and Jai Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue, Lucknow, 1956 A.W.R. 518.;