- (1.) Heard.
(2.) The short point involved herein is as to whether a revision would lie under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code 2006 (hereinafter referred as 'Code 2006') against an appellate order passed under section 35(2) arising out of mutation proceedings or not. The Additional Commissioner has dismissed the revision of the petitioner filed under section 210 of the Code 2006 on the ground that against the original order passed in the mutation proceedings an appeal lies under section 35(2) of the Code 2006, therefore, revision under section 210 of the Code 2006 would not be maintainable in view of the wording of the said provision.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional court has misread and misunderstood the provision contained in section 210. Words used therein "in which no appeal lies" would have to be applied in the context of the appellate order and not the original order and as no appeal lies against the order under section 35(2), therefore, the remedy lies only by way of a revision under section 210. He says that if the interpretation given to the provision contained in section 210 by the Revisional Court is accepted, the revisional provision under section 210 would be rendered otiose.;