Naseemuddin, J. - (1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India order dated 12.7.99 passed by Board of Revenue (Annexure 5 to the writ petition ) has been sought to be set aside.
(2.) The matter pertains to mutation of agricultural land under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that no writ petition lie in a case where the proceedings are not conclusive and can be decided by regular suit and that mutation proceedings being also of summary nature and do not decide the title of the parties, therefore, no writ petition lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also opposed on the ground that since alternative remedy is available, therefore, the writ petition also does not lie in cases of mutation proceedings. Learned counsel supported his argument with the case of Akhtar Hussain and another v. Board of Revenue, 1987 RD 33 wherein it has been held that question of title is not conclusively decided in mutation proceedings and parties can get a judgment from appropriate court on question of their title over disputed property. The other case is that of Shiv Raj Gupta v. Board of Revenue U.P., 1989 RD 35 wherein it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable challenging an order passed by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings under Land Revenue Act because the judgment and order passed by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings are not conclusive because competent court in a regular suit for title can ignore the observations made by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings. In the present case also it is not disputed that the order was passed in mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. In view of the above citations the writ petition is not maintainable and is to be dismissed.
(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that second revision was not maintainable in view of new Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act which has been substituted by L.R. Act No. 20 of 1997. Under sub-section (1) of Section 219 the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any revenue court subordinate to him in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held and if such subordinate revenue court appears to have:- (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Collector or the Record Officer, or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, pass such order in the case as he thinks fit. (2)................";