S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 4.7.1997 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) by which after setting aside the orders of three courts below mutation of the name of the opposite been allowed. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that Dulla happens to be recorded tenant of the land. On his death name of Babu Lal was recorded by the Supervisor Kanoongo on the basis of P.A. 11. An application for mutation under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act was filed by Mst. Kalli claiming herself to be widow of the deceased. Another objection was filed by Babu Lal through Ram Rati, her mother, claiming himself to be the son of the deceased Dulla as Ram Rati was married to Dulla. After the evidence was led the Tehsildar recorded a finding that Ram Rati was not married to Dulla but was living with him and thus she can be said at the most to be concubine and, therefore, in view of the admitted position about Mst. Kalli being widow of the deceased her name was mutated. The order of Tehsildar was challenged by the opposite party in the appellate court but the appeal was dismissed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 10.1.1991 and thereafter the revision was also dismissed by Additional Commissioner on 16.4.1993. The opposite party then filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was initially dismissed on 2.12.1993 but thereafter on recall of that order the revision has been allowed by order dated 4.7.1997 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition), which is under challenge in this petition by the petitioner who claims to be the vendee from Mst. Kalli.
(3.) AT the very outset counsel for the parties met each other on the question about maintainability of this writ petition which is admittedly against the mutation proceedings. Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition being against the order of mutation courts is not maintainable as has been held by series of decisions of this Court as in 2003 CRC 221, in the case of Ram Kumar and at page 245 in the case of Ishu, In response to the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submits that certain exceptions have been carved out by this Court after dealing with large number of single Judge judgment and also the Division Bench in which it has been held that the writ petition can be entertained subject to availability of the remedy to the party aggrieved after the decision of this Court. Reliance has been placed on a decision given by this Court in the case of Lal Bachan, 2002 RD 6.;