JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhan Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3, 5 to 9 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings, under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 16.01.2014, 07.03.2014, 30.10.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baberu, District Banda, respondent no.11 and the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner ( Administration), respondent no.10. 3. The order dated 25.09.2013, is an order passed on a restoration application, filed by the respondent and directs that the restoration application be put up with the file. 4. The order dated 16.01.2014 recalls an order dated 23.08.2013 dismissing a restoration application of the respondents, for default. 5. The order dated 07.03.2014 is an order, whereby the appeal filed by one Ketki had been allowed, the order of the Trial Court dated 11.12.2008 was set aside and the matter remanded back for a fresh decision on the merits, after hearing all necessary parties. 6. The order dated 30.10.2014, rejects a restoration application filed by the petitioner, for recall of the order dated 07.03.2014. 7. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, filed two revisions, challenging the orders dated 30.10.2014 and 16.1.2014 respectively. Both these revisions, have been dismissed on 17.08.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute pertains to plot nos.1451, 253, 159 new no. 186M area 29 bigha, situated in village Marauli, Tehsil Baberu, District Banda, which was recorded in the name of Smt. Sudharia wife of Bhagirath. The petitioner is the adopted son of Smt. Sudharia. 9. On 28.09.1974, Smt. Sudharia executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.1, Ram Narain. However, in proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the Prescribed Authority, discarded the sale deed. 10. However, against the order declaring certain land as surplus in the hands of Smt. Sudharia, an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was filed. This appeal was allowed and the matter remanded vide order dated 13.03.1977 to determine the irrigated and un-irrigated land in the hands of the tenure holder. 11. 10. However, against the order declaring certain land as surplus in the hands of Smt. Sudharia, an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was filed. This appeal was allowed and the matter remanded vide order dated 13.03.1977 to determine the irrigated and un-irrigated land in the hands of the tenure holder. 11. It has been submitted that even in the appellate order, the sale deed in favour of Ram Narain was held to be a void transaction. 12. The consequential writ petition, filed by Smt. Sudharia being writ petition No.2562 of 1977 was dismissed on 17.12.1977 and even the High Court failed to accept the sale deed. 13. Upon remand, the Prescribed Puthority again held certain land to be surplus in the hands of tenure holder vide order dated 31.03.1986. The petitioner filed an appeal, under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed on 23.03.1988. 14. Against these orders, a writ petition No.9694 of 1988 filed by the petitioners is stated to be pending consideration as on date. 15. It is submitted that during the pendency of the Ceiling Proceedings, Ram Narain initially filed an objection, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking mutation on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.09.1974, executed in his favour by Smt. Sudharia. This objection was dismissed for default and the order had become final. 16. Concealing this fact, Ram Narain preferred another objection, under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and obtained mutation, vide order dated 20.01.1981. 17. When the petitioner came to know about the mutation order, he filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed on 15.01.2009 and the petitioner was ordered to be mutated over the land in question. 18. However, respondent no.1 filed a revision against the appellate order in favour of the petitioners, which was allowed on 23.06.2013. Even against this order, a writ petition is stated to be pending consideration before this Court. 19. In the meantime, on 05.02.2007, Ram Narain is alleged to have executed two sale deeds, one in favour of his nephews Vikas Narain and Arun Kumar and another in favour of Smt. Ketki (since deceased). 20. The purchasers instituted mutation proceedings by means of separate applications, which were consolidated. The petitioner sought impleadment in the mutation cases, which was refused. In the meantime, on 05.02.2007, Ram Narain is alleged to have executed two sale deeds, one in favour of his nephews Vikas Narain and Arun Kumar and another in favour of Smt. Ketki (since deceased). 20. The purchasers instituted mutation proceedings by means of separate applications, which were consolidated. The petitioner sought impleadment in the mutation cases, which was refused. However, ultimately the impleadment application was allowed by the Board of Revenue and the petitioner was ordered to be impleaded in the mutation cases instituted by the vendees of Ram Narain. 21. Thereafter, the mutation Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 11.12.2008 abated the mutation proceedings, awaiting decision by the High Court in the writ arising out of the ceiling proceedings. 22. Against this order of abatement, two appeals were filed. These appeals were dismissed for default on 18.11.2009. The consequential restoration application was also dismissed for default on 23.08.2013. 23. It is contended that despite the appeal having been dismissed, concealing this fact, a writ petition was filed and an order for expeditious disposal of the appeals was obtained. Thereafter, on 07.09.2014 yet another recall application was filed by the respondents. Another and second restoration application was filed on 25.09.2013 which was clearly not maintainable. 24. However, the restoration applications were allowed on 16.01.2014 and thereafter the appeal itself was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision vide order dated 07.03.2014. 25. On coming to know of the order of remand, the petitioner filed a recall application which was dismissed on the ground that the order sought to be recalled, was an order passed on merits after hearing the parties. The application for recall therefore, amounted to a review. The appellate Court hearing an appeal arising out of mutation proceedings did not have the power of review. 26. The petitioner thereafter preferred two revisions, challenging the orders dated 30.10.2014 and 07.03.2014. Both these revisions have been dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2016. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal has been allowed without hearing the petitioners. He has referred to various documents including the order sheet of the proceedings before the Appellate court to show that the appellate order of remand has been obtained fraudulently. 28. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal has been allowed without hearing the petitioners. He has referred to various documents including the order sheet of the proceedings before the Appellate court to show that the appellate order of remand has been obtained fraudulently. 28. It is also submitted that the sale deed in favour of Ram Narain, the vendor of the respondents, has in ceiling proceedings been held to be a void transaction. The sale deed has not been accepted and therefore, Ram Narain was not a valid transferee. He had no right, title or interest in the land, subject matter of the sale deeds, which has been discarded by the ceiling courts and therefore, he had no saleable interest which he could transfer to the respondents by means of the sale deeds, in the year 2007. 29. It is lastly submitted that the appellate order of remand is a non speaking order. It had been passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore a recall application was filed. The Appellate Court has wrongly and illegally treated it to be a review application and dismissed the same. The impugned orders are, therefore, vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the order impugned is primarily an order of remand, it is not a fit case for interference. 31. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the sale deed in favour of Ram Narain, executed on 28.09.1974 by Smt. Sudharia, had been discarded by the ceiling authorities, Ram Narain did not acquire any interest in the land thereunder. He therefore, had no right, title and interest which could have been transferred by him in favour of the respondents by the registered sale deed, executed on 05.02.2007. The mutation applications have wrongly been entertained and the order of remand is an exercise in futility. 32. Prima facie, this Court does not found any substance in this argument raised by the petitioner. 33. A sale deed executed by a tenure holder can be discarded in ceiling proceedings but such action is only for the purposes of determining the ceiling area in the hands of the tenure holder. The land, which is subject matter of the sale, if declared surplus, will vest in the State. 33. A sale deed executed by a tenure holder can be discarded in ceiling proceedings but such action is only for the purposes of determining the ceiling area in the hands of the tenure holder. The land, which is subject matter of the sale, if declared surplus, will vest in the State. However, if the entire area, subject matter of the sale deed, or even part thereof, remains with the vendor, the sale would be a valid and binding transaction between the vendor and vendee, unless it is set aside by the court of competent jurisdiction. 34. In my considered opinion, once a sale deed is discarded or not accepted during ceiling proceedings in view of Section 5(6) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, the same is only for determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure holder but the same would still be binding and operative between the vendor and vendee, unless set aside by the Civil Court, in appropriate proceedings for cancellation, thereof. 35. Besides, from the narration of facts in the earlier part of this order, it is clear that the ceiling proceedings have yet not attained finality and a writ petition challenging the orders of the Prescribed and appellate authority, is pending consideration. 36. Even, the proceedings arising out of the objection, under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, instituted by Ram Narain, allegedly on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.09.1974 in his favour, is also pending consideration before this Court. 37. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner and not by Ram Narain. It therefore, emerges that in so far as, the title proceedings, under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are concerned, the last order passed by the consolidation authority is, in fact, in favour of Ram Narain. 38. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and since, by the orders impugned, the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court to decide the mutation applications after hearing all concerned and because the submissions that are being raised by counsel for the petitioner have not been adverted to, by any subordinate court, till date, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the matter. 39. The petitioner can raise all pleas both on facts and on law before the mutation Court where the matter has been remanded. 39. The petitioner can raise all pleas both on facts and on law before the mutation Court where the matter has been remanded. Besides, the proceedings, where from the writ petition arises are summary proceedings and this is an additional ground why this Court refuses to interfere in the matter. 40. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may contest the mutation case, raising all such pleas that may be available to him, both on facts and on law. Petition Dismissed.