JUDGMENT : 1. Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kadipur in an appeal filed under Section 210/211 of the Land Revenue Act against an order dated 12.07.2001 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Dostpur, Sultanpur in Case No. 724, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the recorded tenure holder Kamal Nayan had executed a Will in favour of the opposite party no. 5 and thereafter the opposite party no. 5 had executed a sale deed in favour of Chhote Lal - the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Chhote Lal and the opposite party no. 5 both filed separate application for mutation, which were clubbed together. One Hari Shyam, brother of Opposite party no. 5 had filed objections against the application disputing the Will and claiming ownership in respect of half share on the basis of succession. 4. The application filed by Chhote Lal was dismissed in default on 18.06.2001. He filed an application for restoration on the same date, but the same was allowed on 09.07.2001. Although the application remained dismissed for default between 18.06.2001 and 09.07.2001, a compromise purportedly signed by Hari Shyam and Chhote Lal was filed on 27.06.2001, statements of Chhote Lal and an attesting witness of the Will were recorded on the same day. 5. The order dated 18.06.2001 was recalled on 09.07.2001 and on 12.07.2001, the Nayab Tahsildar passed an order allowing mutation in terms of the compromise between Hari Shyam and Chhote Lal. The compromise was filed and statements were recorded while the application was lying dismissed for default. 6. The opposite party no. 5 Ram Shyam filed an Appeal against the order dated 12.07.2001, stating that he did not get any notice of the application for restoration and the order has been obtained in furtherance of a conspiracy between the witnesses. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal by means of an order dated 03.10.2006, whereby he set aside the order dated 12.07.2001 and remanded the matter for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5. 8. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal by means of an order dated 03.10.2006, whereby he set aside the order dated 12.07.2001 and remanded the matter for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5. 8. Chhote Lal challenged the appellate order by filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 18.05.2023 on the ground that while allowing the appeal, the matter has been remanded to the Naib Tehsildar for passing a fresh order on merits of the case. As the parties will have an opportunity to present their case, there is no need for interference in the remand order. 9. The learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of the Writ petition on the ground that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and the question of title is not decided in mutation proceedings. Therefore, the aforesaid order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Replying to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that title has been decided in the name of mutation in the present case. 11. A perusal of the mutation order dated 12.07.2001 indicates that it was decided on the basis of a compromise between Hari Shyam and the opposite party no. 5, when the application was lying dismissed in default. It merely records that on the basis of material available on record, it would be proper to enter the plaintiff’s name in respect of the property in question. Nothing has been stated in the order regarding title of the parties. While setting aside the aforesaid order, the appellant authority has merely remanded the matter for being decided afresh on its merit after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5 and the appellate authority has also not recorded any finding or satisfaction about title of the parties. The revisional authority has refused to interfere against the appellate order holding that it was merely an order of remand and the parties will have the opportunity to present their case. The revisional authority has also not recorded any finding which may affect the title of the parties. The revisional authority has refused to interfere against the appellate order holding that it was merely an order of remand and the parties will have the opportunity to present their case. The revisional authority has also not recorded any finding which may affect the title of the parties. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that the title has been decided in the present case while deciding the mutation application. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue, UP, 2002 (93) RD 6 wherein this Hon’ble Court held as follows : 22. The cases in which writ petition can also be entertained arising out of the mutation proceedings may be cases in which an authority not having jurisdiction has passed an order or interfered with an order passed in the proceedings. The writ petition challenging an order passed without jurisdiction can be entertained by the Court despite availability of an alternative remedy. However, in that case also, the Court will interfere only when it appears that substantial injustice has been suffered by a party. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings under Section 34 U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be entertained by this Court subject to only exception as laid down by the Division Bench in Jaipal’s case supra). The writ petition may also be entertained where authority passing the order had no jurisdiction. 23. The third question which arises in the writ petition is as to whether in view of the facts of the present case, the present writ petition can be entertained. From the facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, it is clear that the writ petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of succession on death of Smt. Chandra Dei. The respondent No. 6 is claiming on the basis of sale-deed from the said Smt. Chandra Dei. The dispute was squarely covered by Section 34 of the Act and was simple cause of mutation as contemplated in Section 34 of the Act. The orders passed in mutation proceedings are only summary in nature which does not entitle the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The dispute was squarely covered by Section 34 of the Act and was simple cause of mutation as contemplated in Section 34 of the Act. The orders passed in mutation proceedings are only summary in nature which does not entitle the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of what has been said above, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. It is however, observed that the impugned order passed in mutation proceedings being in summery proceedings, will not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking adjudication of his title before the competent court. The orders passed in the mutation proceedings are always subject to decision by competent court entitled to adjudicate the title” (Emphasis supplied). 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court another judgment dated 29.11.2019 rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 32853 (M/S) of 2019, wherein the earlier decision in Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue has been followed and it has been held that ‘the writ petition, challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings are not usually entertained as the remedy of getting the title adjudicated in Regular Suit is available to the parties.’ 14. The exceptional circumstances, in which this Court can entertain a Writ Petition arising out of mutation proceedings have been succinctly stated by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hadisul Nisha vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and Ors., 2021 (6) ADJ 176 as follows:- “19. The exceptional circumstances, in which this Court can entertain a Writ Petition arising out of mutation proceedings have been succinctly stated by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hadisul Nisha vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and Ors., 2021 (6) ADJ 176 as follows:- “19. …The exceptions that have been carved out being very few, for example: (i) If the order is without jurisdiction; (ii) If the rights and title of the parties have already been decided by the competent Court, and that has been varied by the mutation Courts; (iii) If the mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into a debate of entitlement to succeed the property, touching into the merits of the rival claims; (iv) If rights have been created which are against statutory provisions of any Statute, and the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; (v) Where the orders impugned in the writ petition have been passed on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, or by fabricating the documents by anyone of the litigants. (vi) Where the Courts have not considered the matter on merits for example the Courts have passed orders on restoration applications etc.” 15. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authorities deciding the mutation application, the appeal and the revision did not have jurisdiction to do so or that any other exceptional circumstance exists in the present case which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary Writ jurisdiction. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act provides that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex-parte or in default. He has submitted that while deciding the appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner has recorded that the mutation application was dismissed in default on 18.06.2001. Chhote Lal had filed an application for restoration which was allowed on 09.07.2001. The statements of attesting witness of the will had been recorded after dismissal of the application in default and before it was restored. After restoration of the case, no notice of the restoration was sent to the opposite party no.5. The admission of claim filed by the opposite party no. The statements of attesting witness of the will had been recorded after dismissal of the application in default and before it was restored. After restoration of the case, no notice of the restoration was sent to the opposite party no.5. The admission of claim filed by the opposite party no. 5 appears to be suspicious and the opposite party no. 5 has not put his signatures on the order sheet. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellate authority found that the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was not in accordance with the law. 17. The order dated 12.07.2021 does not state that it was an ex-parte order and, therefore, an appeal against the aforesaid order is not barred by the provisions of Section 201 of the Land Revenue Act. It cannot be accepted that the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal against an order passed on the basis of a compromise, which was not signed by all the parties and which was filed while the suit was lying dismissed for default. The aforesaid narration made by the appellate authority in the appeal regarding the order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Naib Tehsildar would not make the order ex-parte so as to create a bar filing of appeal against the aforesaid order under Section 201 of the Land Revenue Act. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the orders under challenge do not decide title of the parties and the orders are not without jurisdiction. 19. There is one more reason for declining to entertain the Writ Petition and that by means of the order under challenge, the appellate authority has merely remanded the matter for being decided afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no. 5. It is settled law that a Writ Petition against a remand order should not be entertained unless there are compelling reasons warranting exercise of extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this Court. No compelling reasons have been are shown in the present case as to why the remand order passed by the opposite party no. 3 and affirmed by respondent No. 2 should be interfered in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. No compelling reasons have been are shown in the present case as to why the remand order passed by the opposite party no. 3 and affirmed by respondent No. 2 should be interfered in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the orders passed in mutation proceedings is dismissed at the admission stage without making any observation which may affect the merits of the case. 21. The dismissal of the writ petition will not affect the right of the petitioners to seek redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.