(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- State.
(2.) This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Sec. 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
(3.) When the matter was taken up today, learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that proceedings in question under Sec. 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary in nature and writ petition against the said proceedings is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825.