JUDGMENT R.R. Zaidi, J.
1. Present petition arises out of the proceedings under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and is directed against the judgments and orders dated 15.6.1999 and 4.1.2000 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 1 respectively.
2. It appears that in the mutation proceedings, the petitioner has applied for interim relief. Application for grant of interim relief was rejected by respondent No. 3. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner against the order passed by respondent No. 3. The Commissioner also declined to grant the interim relief. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1286 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 8.1.2000 with the observation that the revisional court shall endeavour to dispose of the revision finally as early as possible. The Commissioner although did not decide the revision, but rejected the application for interim relief by the impugned order dated 4.1.2000. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the revision filed by the petitioner is still pending disposal. Therefore, there was no justification for the revisional court not to grant the Interim relief. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 was, as such, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, an application filed to recall the said order was also rejected. According to him, no application to recall the said order has been filed although aforesaid fact was known to the petitioner. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order under challenge is revisable. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order, he could approach the U.P. Board of Revenue, against the impugned order and could file a revision. Petitioner having not filed the revision against the impugned order the same became final. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, legally not maintainable.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the first petition was filed and dismissed by this Court for all practical purposes as this Court refused to interfere with the order and directed the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously. Secondly, the alternative remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner. The petitioner having not exhausted the alternative remedy approached this Court straightaway, therefore, the present petition is also legally not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Thirdly, the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature. The title of the parties to the property in dispute is not decided In the said proceedings. It is well-settled in law that against the orders passed under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is legally not maintainable. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Narain Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and Ors, 1999 (3) AWC 1931 : (1999) 2 CRC 342 ; Brahma Deo and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, U. P. and Ors. 1986 AWC 1248: 1986 RD 302 and Jai Pal Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors., 1956 AWR 518.
6. For the facts and reasons given above, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.