PURAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 4.7.1997 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) by which after setting aside the orders of three courts below mutation of the name of the opposite been allowed.

(3.) AT the very outset counsel for the parties met each other on the question about maintainability of this writ petition which is admittedly against the mutation proceedings. Counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition being against the order of mutation courts is not maintainable as has been held by series of decisions of this Court as in 2003 CRC 221, in the case of Ram Kumar and at page 245 in the case of Ishu, In response to the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submits that certain exceptions have been carved out by this Court after dealing with large number of single Judge judgment and also the Division Bench in which it has been held that the writ petition can be entertained subject to availability of the remedy to the party aggrieved after the decision of this Court. Reliance has been placed on a decision given by this Court in the case of Lal Bachan, 2002 RD 6.