HAR PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 29.12.2014 whereby a restoration application has been allowed along with a substitution application.

(2.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the restoration application was barred by time and till such time Section 5 application had been allowed, the restoration application itself could not have been considered.

(3.) THE matter pertains to mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. These are summary proceedings, purely fiscal in nature and do not determine the title of the parties therein. Besides, the findings returned in such proceedings was not binding either as estoppel or resjudicata before a court in regular title proceedings.