JUDGMENT Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girish Chandra Yadav, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. On death of recorded tenure-holder Arjun Singh, contesting respondents moved an application under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act for mutation of their name on the basis of a registered ‘Will’, said to have been executed in their favour. Proceedings were contested by petitioner, who is son of recorded tenure holder. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 14.10.2003 rejected the application, against which an appeal was filed by contesting respondents. Assistant Collector, First Class, Meerut vide order dated 27.10.2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to decide proceedings afresh on merits after opportunity of fresh evidence to the parties. Petitioner challenged the same by filing revision. Additional Commissioner-III, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissed the same. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that Tehsildar rejected the claim of contesting respondents on the ground that they failed to establish ‘Will’ by producing marginal witness and remand made by appellate Court with direction to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence is illegal in as much as no remand can be made to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. It is further submitted that ‘Will’ was surrounded by suspicious circumstances which was dispelled as there was no reason in the Will to exclude the only son from inheriting the property. 4. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Assistant Tehsildar rejected the mutation application on a categorical finding that contesting respondents failed to prove the Will by producing any of the marginal witnesses as required by law and the only witness produced was one Raja Ram, brother of the attesting witness Jai Pal which was not sufficient compliance of the legal provision to establish and prove the Will. Tehsildar has also recorded a finding that Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances for there was no reason contained therein for disinheriting only son and the contesting respondents failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances. Tehsildar has also recorded a finding that Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances for there was no reason contained therein for disinheriting only son and the contesting respondents failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances. Appellate Court by means of a cursory and nonspeaking order has simply allowed the appeal on the ground that judgment of the Assistant Tehsildar is based on circumstances and thus not liable to be sustained. Appellate Court further directed that parties may be provided fresh opportunity to adduce evidence. Revision has also been dismissed without recording any reasons by a cursory order. 7. Once the Assistant Tehsildar found that contesting respondents have failed to prove the Will by producing marginal witnesses, the order of remand by the appellate Court cannot be said to be legal and justified in as much as it is well settled that no remand can be made to decide proceedings afresh after opportunity of fresh evidence permitting the parties to fill in the lacuna in their case. Revisional Court has also failed to address this issue. 8. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the appellate Court and Revisional Court cannot be sustained on this ground alone and are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. 9. However, since the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and it is well settled that finding recorded in summary proceedings have no binding effect on regular side, it shall be open to the contesting respondents to initiate the proceedings on the regular side for establishment of their rights, if so advised, and the findings recorded by the authorities below as well as dismissal of this petition will have no binding effect on the same. —————