S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioners filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against respondents 3 to 18 being suit No. 58/28/ 236-A of 1988-89. Prior to the filing of the suit litigation in between the parties had taken place in mutation proceedings in which order was passed against the plaintiff petitioners. Additional S.D.O. Chail, Allahabad on 27.1.1992 decreed the suit and directed that only the name of the petitioners shall be recorded in the revenue records over the land in dispute exclusively and the name of contesting defendants respondents recorded in the revenue records as co-tenure holder should be expunged. The said direction followed declaration of right in favour of plaintiff petitioners. Against the said judgment and decree dated 27.1.1992 contesting respondents filed appeal being appeal No. 21 of 1992. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Allahabad Division, Allahabad on 23.11.1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court/A.S.D.O. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the Trial Court while deciding the suit did not take into consideration the earlier orders passed in mutation proceeding which was not proper. The learned Additional Commissioner further held that earlier orders passed in mutation proceedings had been approved by Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, allowed the appeal on 23.11.1994 A perusal of the judgment of Additional Commissioner shows that he was of the view that earlier orders passed in mutation proceedings are almost binding in the subsequently filed regular suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court plaintiff petitioners filed second appeal before Board of Revenue being second appeal No. 11 of 1994-95 Dmai v. Mundar. Board of Revenue on 8.5.1996 dismissed the second appeal holding in concluding paragraph that, "In view of these discussions I am of a definite view that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are not based on evidence on the record. The first Appellate Court has interfered with it validly."
(3.) Orders passed and findings given in mutation proceedings are not conclusive and are always subject to the result of regular suit based on title. The learned Additional Commissioner was not correct in deciding the appeal by holding that the orders passed in mutation proceedings were almost binding on the parties. Additional Commissioner did not record its own findings of fact. It did not discuss the evidence while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Additional Commissioner committed patent error of law and the second appeal filed before Board of Revenue against the said judgment involved substantial question of law. In second appeal findings of fact cannot be discussed or recorded. The only course left open to the Board of Revenue was to remand the matter to the first Appellate Court for deciding the appeal on merit.;