RAM KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. S. Kushwaha, learned advocate who appeared for the private respondent.

(2.) Challenge before this Court is the decision/orders passed by the three revenue authorities, i.e., Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer by which the petitioner's name in the mutation side in proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act stands rejected. It appears that the Tehsildar has accepted the claim of the petitioner and directed for mutation of his name which was passed on the basis of adoption. When the matter was taken up by the opposite party to the next higher forum, it has been held by the three Courts referred above while rejecting the petitioner's claim that the adoption deed as is being claimed by the petitioner is not valid and is not approved and they preferred to rely upon the Will deed upon which the respondents laid their claim.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the three revenue authorities discarding adoption deed in favour of the petitioner is totally illegal and perverse and in fact the findings recorded by the Tehsildar has not been reversed and, therefore, on this ground alone petitioner is entitled to get relief from this Court. It is further submitted that the objection which is being taken by the opposite party that the writ petition being against the orders passed under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act to be not maintainable is unsustainable as in the recent decision as has been given in the case of Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue and Ors., 2001 ACJ 1465, it has been held that availability of the alternative remedy, i.e., filing of regular suit for declaration of rights is not an absolute bar and the writ petition can be entertained. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on a decision given by this Court in Nagal and Anr. v. Board of Revenue and Ors.. 2002 (93) RD 365.