B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 15-11-1977 passed in a proceeding under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Ram Khelawan was recorded over the plots in dispute and he died. THEreafter his three sons, namely, Chandra Mani, Durg Vijai and Narain along with his grand sons Anurudh and Ambika made application under section 34 of the Act alleging that they have succeeded the deceased and hence their names may be recorded in place of the deceased. One Smt. Shanti was widow of Chandra Bhan, pre-deceased son of Ram Khelawan and Smt. Gujrati was also a widow. Ambika alleging to be grand son of deceased was the son of Smt. Gujrati whereas he alleged himself to be the son of Smt. Shanti Devi. Anrudh has also died and Smt. Lakhpati, his widow applied for being mutated as the widow of the pre-deceased grand-son of the deceased. An objection was filed by Smt. Gujrati and Smt. Lakhpati on the application of Ambika that he was not the grand-son of the deceased Ram Khelawan, hence his name should not be recorded in place of Ram Khelawan. The Tahsildar, Dumariaganj, Basti, by his order dated 26-10-1974 held that Smt. Lakhpati widow of Anurudh and Smt. Gujrati mother of the deceased Ambika may be recorded as the successors of Ram Khelawan. A revision was filed before the Additional Collector by Ambika and that was dismissed by the order dated 27-1-1975. Ambika again filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of the Act and the said revision has been allowed by the order dated 15-11-1977. The present petition is directed against this order and the prayer is that by issuing a writ of certiorari, this order may be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 219 of the Act the revision was filed and has been allowed. As there was no error in the exercise of jurisdiction nor any illegality was committed by the subordinate authorities, hence the Board of Revenue exceeded the jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact in allowing the revision holding that name of Ambika, grand son of Ram Khelawan, deceased, shall also be mutated in place of the deceased. It was further urged that the findings of fact could not have been set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 219 of the Act.
(3.) IT has further been urged that the present petition would not be barred by an alternative remedy and he has relied upon Jaipal v. Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad, 1956 AWR 518 and also on Majid v. Manfait, 1981 AWC 185 and State of M. P. v Babu Lal, AIR 1977 SC 1718. Sri S. D. Pathak on behalf of the respondents urged that the present petition arises out of the mutation proceedings and it has been consistently held by this Court that against orders in mutation proceedings writ petitions are barred by alternative remedy. No right or title of the petitioner have been decided and in case the petitioners feel aggrieved, they can file a regular suit. Sri Pathak has placed reliance upon Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, lv56 AWR 518 and Majid v. Manfait, 1981 AWC 185, Lakhraj v. Board of Revenue, 1981 RD 18 and Rudra Pratap v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1975 All. 125.;