JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard. 2. The short point involved herein is as to whether a revision would lie under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 (sic) (hereinafter referred as 'Code 2006') against an appellate order passed under section 35(2) arising out of mutation proceedings or not. 3. The Additional Commissioner has dismissed the revision of the petitioner filed under section 210 of the Code, 2006 on the ground that against the original order passed in the mutation proceedings an appeal lies under section 35(2) of the Code, 2006, therefore, revision under section 210 of the Code 2006 would not be maintainable in view of the wording of the said provision. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Re-visional Court has misread and misunderstood the provision contained in section 210. Words used therein "in which no appeal lies" would have to be applied in the context of the appellate order and not the original order and as no appeal lies against the order under section 35(2), therefore, the remedy lies only by way of a revision under section 210. He says that if the interpretation given to the provision contained in section 210 by the Revisional Court is accepted, the revisional provision under section 210 would be rendered otiose. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh on being confronted addressed the Court on the merits of the order impugned in the revision, which is not required to be seen by this Court and ultimately submitted that the revision itself be ordered to be decided at the earliest. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant provisions of law, the Court finds that a revision under section 210 would lie against a proceeding in which no appeal lies, meaning thereby, if, as in this case arising out of original proceedings which were under section 35 of the Code, 2006 for mutation where an appeal was preferred under section 35(2) against the original order passed under section 35(1) and the same was dismissed, then, against such appellate order, if no appeal lies, then a revision would be maintainable. Now it is not in dispute that under the Code, 2006 no appeal is prescribed against an order passed under section 35(2), therefore, a revision under section 210 of the Code, 2006 would be maintainable. 7. The Additional Commissioner has clearly misread and misunderstood the provisions contained in section 210 by reading the words "in which no appeal lies" in the context of the original order passed under section 35(1) in mutation proceedings and as an appeal lies against such an order under section 35(2), therefore, he has proceeded to hold that a revision would not lie under section 210 of the Code, 2006 which is not a correct understanding of the legal position. The words "in which no appeal lies" would have to be read and applied in the context of the appellate order passed under section 35(2) which would be the subject matter of the revision, and not the original order even if the same is also under challenge, when the revision has been preferred after availing the remedy of appeal under section 35(2), as is the case herein. 8. The legal position with regard to section 210 having been clarified above, the Court finds that the original order of mutation was passed under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 and not under section 35 of the Code 2006, therefore, the appeal which may have been filed under section 35(2) of the Code 2006 should have actually been filed under section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 and thereafter the revision would lie under section 219 of the said Act 1901, therefore, to facilitate the ends of justice the appeal filed under section 35(2) of the Code 2006 in this case would be treated as having been preferred under section 210 of the Act 1901 and consequent to this judgment, as this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 16.7.2019, it is provided that the revision which may have been filed with reference to section 210 of the Code 2006 shall be treated as a revision under section 219 of the Act 1901 and shall now be considered and decided accordingly. This does not change the legal position with regard to the maintainability of the petitioner's revision as even under section 219 of the Act 1901 it would be maintainable in view of the provision contained therein. This does not change the legal position with regard to the maintainability of the petitioner's revision as even under section 219 of the Act 1901 it would be maintainable in view of the provision contained therein. With these observations the impugned order, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed. The revision of the petitioner shall be restored to its original number and shall be considered and decided in accordance with law at the earliest say within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 9. With the above observations/directions the writ petition is disposed off.