JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amit Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Nitya Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 & 3. 2. By means of the instant writ petition field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (respondent no.1) whereby the Revision bearing Case No. 775 of 2022 (Siddhant Gupta versus Smt. Meera Devi) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, filed by the respondent no.2 namely Siddhant Gupta has been allowed. 3. The Board of Revenue vide the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 allowed the aforesaid revision by setting aside the mutation order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned ‘in the light of the findings recorded’ by it in the impugned order dated 05.06.2023. 4. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the petitioners purchased the disputed land under a registered sale-deed dated 11.06.2009. The said sale deed was jointly executed by Anuj Gupta son of late Srinath Gupta and Smt. Neelam Devi widow of late Srinath Gupta (respondent no.3) in her personal capacity as well as the mother and natural guardian of her minor son namely Siddhant (respondent no.2). After, purchase of the land in question through the aforesaid registered sale deed, the petitioners moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 before the Naib Tehsildar for mutation in respect of the said land. 5. The Naib-Tehsildar, Padrauna, District Kushinagar vide order dated 16.12.2009 allowed the aforesaid mutation application and issued direction to the concerned officials to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records over the land in question. 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, the respondent no.3 namely Smt. Neelam Gupta, moved a restoration application on 17.12.2009 which was allowed on the same day and the mutation order dated 16.12.2009 was recalled. 7. 6. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, the respondent no.3 namely Smt. Neelam Gupta, moved a restoration application on 17.12.2009 which was allowed on the same day and the mutation order dated 16.12.2009 was recalled. 7. From the perusal of the record as is available before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner no.1 namely Meera Devi preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, assailing the aforesaid restoration order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar. On the other hand, one Shashank son of Srinath also preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer challenging the mutation order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Padrauna heard both the aforesaid appeals together on 08.08.2012 and finally decided both the aforesaid appeals by a common judgment and order dated 08.08.2012. 9. By means of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.08.2012, the Sub Divisional Officer declined to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner no.1 namely Meera Devi on the ground that the order dated 17.12.2009 challenged in the said appeal is an interlocutory order by means of which the restoration application has been allowed and as such, no appeal is maintainable against the same. Further, the Sub Divisional Officer vide the same order dated 08.08.2012 decided not to entertain the appeal filed by above-mentioned Shashank against the order dated 16.12.2009 on the ground that the same had already been recalled by means of the restoration order dated 17.12.2009, as such, no appeal is entertainable against a nonexistent order. 10. The Appellate Court, however, vide the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.08.2012 partly allowed the appeal filed by Shashank son of Srinath by remitting the matter to the lower court with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two months. The respondent no.3 filed a Revision bearing No. 42/K/2012 against the order dated 08.08.2012; before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which was dismissed on 24.05.2019. 11. After the matter was remitted to the lower court, the learned court of Tehsildar concerned vide order dated 02.02.2022 rejected the claim of the private respondents and issued direction to mutate of the name of the petitioners in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.06.2009. 12. 11. After the matter was remitted to the lower court, the learned court of Tehsildar concerned vide order dated 02.02.2022 rejected the claim of the private respondents and issued direction to mutate of the name of the petitioners in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.06.2009. 12. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 02.02.2022 was challenged by means of a Revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by the respondent no.2 namely Sidhhant Gupta, who was minor at the time of the execution of the aforesaid sale seed dated 11.06.2009, raising several grounds challenging the authority of her mother to execute the aforesaid sale deed on his behalf without following the due process of law and also on the ground that the order of mutation being ex-parte against him, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, having being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The Revisional Court-respondent no.1 vide the impugned judgment and order dated 05.06.2023 allowed the aforesaid revision with the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the permission as required under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, has ever been obtained prior to the execution of the sale deed in respect of the share of the minor and as such, in the absence of the aforesaid permission, the mutation proceeding based on the said sale deed, is illegal and erroneous. Further, no notice was issued to the parties on the transfer of the case from the court of Naib-Tehsildar, Padrauna to the court of Naib-Tehsildar Khadda and the order was passed in an ex-parte manner, which is illegal. 14. With the aforesaid finding, the learned Board of Revenue (respondent no.1) remanded the matter to the court of Tehsildar, Khadda, with the direction to decide the same in the light of the findings recorded by it, within a period of four months after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 15. 14. With the aforesaid finding, the learned Board of Revenue (respondent no.1) remanded the matter to the court of Tehsildar, Khadda, with the direction to decide the same in the light of the findings recorded by it, within a period of four months after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, the instant writ petition has been filed before this Court mainly on the ground that the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the domain of adjudication of the validity of the sale deed dated 11.06.2009 and recorded its categorical findings on the same, in the mutation case which is admittedly a summary proceeding, and thereafter remanded the matter to the court of Tehsildar with the direction to pass orders in the light of the findings recorded by it in the impugned order. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad in law not only on the ground that the Revenue Courts do not have the jurisdiction to decide the legality of a registered sale-deed and further that the aforesaid findings itself are perverse so much so, that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case Saroj versus Sunder Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10582 of 2013 which has been relied upon by the Board of Revenue is not at all applicable in the present case, but the Board of Revenue without taking into consideration the factual matrix of the present case, has took the shelter of said judgment, which has been passed on a different premise and is not at all applicable in the present case. 17. Per contra, Sri Nitya Prakash, learned appearing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned in the instant writ petition has been passed in the mutation proceedings, which is summary in nature hence, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable. 2 & 3 raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order impugned in the instant writ petition has been passed in the mutation proceedings, which is summary in nature hence, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable. He has placed reliance on judgments passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others, reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578 , wherein it has been held that in the mutation proceedings which are summary in nature, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not entertainable except under few circumstances as indicated in Paragraph 40 of the said judgment. 18. Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supported the objection as raised by the leaned counsel for the respondent no.2 & 3 with regard to the non-maintainability of the present writ petition. In support of his submissions, he placed the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Amrintansh Pandey Vs. State of UP & others; reported in (2023) 0 Supreme (All) 1107. In addition to it, he submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow is only a remand order wherein the parties have been given full opportunity to place their contentions before the trial court and as such no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners from the impugned order. 19. Sri Amit Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners refuting the preliminary objection as raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that the present writ petition is perfectly entertainable. He submits that by means of the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has virtually decided the validity of the sale deed dated 11.06.2009 affecting the rights and title of the parties and thus, exceeded its jurisdiction by entering the domain of adjudication of the validity of the said sale deed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Madhav Pandey and others versus Board of Revenue and others, reported in 2002(2) AWC 1311 wherein it has been held that the writ petition is entertainable when there is lack of jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by this court in the case of Madhav Pandey and others versus Board of Revenue and others, reported in 2002(2) AWC 1311 wherein it has been held that the writ petition is entertainable when there is lack of jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case the Board of Revenue has recorded its adverse findings against the execution of the sale deed, virtually holding it to be illegal and thereby committed a glaring jurisdictional error. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed in question was also filed by the private respondents and their family members against the petitioners, before the court of Civil Judge Padrauna District-Kushinagar which was dismissed on 15-09-2021. The copy of the order dated 15.09.2021 has been annexed as annexure no.5 to the writ petition. This material fact has not been considered by the Revenue Board and recorded a perverse finding while setting aside the mutation order dated 02-02-2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar. 21. The preliminary issue before this Court is with regard to the entertainability of the present petition in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being arising out of the orders passed in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. 22. Normally, the High Court in exercise of its plenary power does not entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the Revenue Courts in mutation proceedings. It would not be out of place to mention here that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. It does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of the power to issue writs. It is the discretion of the Writ Court whether to entertain writ petition or not depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is a self-imposed restriction on the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution that has evolved through judicial precedents. 23. It is the discretion of the Writ Court whether to entertain writ petition or not depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is a self-imposed restriction on the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution that has evolved through judicial precedents. 23. It is well settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily the Writ Courts decline to entertain the writ petition as not entertainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings, unless found to be without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court or the order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction; or there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or 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; or 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. 24. The question regarding entertainability of the writ petition against the orders passed in mutation proceedings came up for consideration before this Court in several cases viz. Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue (Supra), Madhav Pandey versus Board of Revenue (Supra) and Hadisul Nisha vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and others reported in 2021 (6) ADJ 176 and after taking into consideration the scope of the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court carved out certain exceptions under which this Court may entertain a Writ petition exercising of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution even against the orders passed in summary proceedings despite the said order having been affirmed/set aside by the appellate or revisional court. 25. It is a settled legal proposition that Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered Sale-Deed in summary proceedings. 25. It is a settled legal proposition that Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered Sale-Deed in summary proceedings. In the case of Jitendra Singh versus State of Madhya Pradesh; reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Sc) 487; Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold as under: "Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made." 26. In the instant case, Board of Revenue while deciding the Revision recorded the following finding. In the instant case, Board of Revenue while deciding the Revision recorded the following finding. For ready reference paragraph (5) and (7) of the impugned order is quoted below: ^^5- rglhynkj [kMMk }kjk mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fnuakd 02-02-2022 dks foØ; i= fnukad 11-06-2009 ds vk/kkj ij foØsrk vuqt xqIrk iq= JhukFk xqIrk o uhye iRuh JhukFk xqIrk [kqn o oyh ekrk ,oa laj{kd fl}kar ukckfyx iq= LoŒ JhukFk xqIrk dk uke fujLr djds Øsrkx.k Jhefr ehjk iRuh d`ik'kdj o Jhefr iwue iRuh fot; dqekj xqIrk ds uke ntZ djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA bl lEca/k esa laxr vf/kfu;e miyC/k fof/k O;oLFkk dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fgUnw vYila[;d ,oa laj{kdrk vf/kfu;e 1956 dh/kkjk 8¼2½ es Li"V izko/kku gS fd fcuk U;k;ky; dh iwoZ vuqefr ds ukckfyx dh lEifŸk dks ca/kd] foØ;] nku] fofue; vkfn laj{kd }kjk ugha fd;k tk;sxkA flfoy vihy la[;k 10582@2013] lwjt cuke lqUnj flag ,oa vU; es ekŒ mPPkre U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 25-11-2013 dks ikfjr vkns'k esa Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ukckfyx dh lEifŸk dks foØ; fxV fofue; vkfn djus ls iwoZ U;k;ky; dh vuqefr vko';d Gsa 7- iz'uxr okn esa fl}kar xqIrk iq= JhukFk dks foØ; fu"iknu ds le; ukckfyx gksuk fl) gS vkSj fl)kar xqIrk ukckfyx dh ekrk }kjk fl)kar ds fgLls ds Hkwfe dk cSukek fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA cSUkkek fu"iknu ds iwoZ l{ke Lrj ls vuqefr izkfIr dh x;h gS] ,slk dksbZ izek.k i=koyh ij miYkC/k ugha gSA fdUrq rglhynkj }kjk vius vkns'k ls ukckfyx dh Hkwfe dk ukekarj.k Lohdkj fd;k gS tks vfof/kd o =qfViw.kZ vkns'k gSA blds vfrfjDr iz'uxr okn uk;c rglhynkj iMjkSuk U;k;ky; ls LFkkukarfjr gksdj uk;c rglhynkj [kMMk ds U;k;ky; es i=koyh izsf"kr dh x;h Fkh] rks rglhynkj [kMMk }kjk fnukad 02-02-2022 dks fdl vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA bldk mYys[k Hkh vkns'k fnukad 02-02-2022 es ugha fd;k x;k gSA^^ 27. From the perusal of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the Board of Revenue to the effect that it disputes the validity of the said sale deed dated 11.06.2009 in the absence of the permission as required under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 tantamount to travelling beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. From the perusal of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the Board of Revenue to the effect that it disputes the validity of the said sale deed dated 11.06.2009 in the absence of the permission as required under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 tantamount to travelling beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. Such a finding recorded by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order is unwarranted and dehors of jurisdiction whereby the Board of Revenue by casting cloud over the process of execution of the sale deed dated 11.06.2009 has virtually decided the legality/validity of the same directly affecting the right/title of the parties and thus, exceeded its jurisdiction by entering the domain of adjudication of the legality of the said sale deed. 28. The fact that the respondent no.2/Revisionist namely Sidhhant Gupta, was a minor at the time of the execution of the aforesaid sale seed dated 11.06.2009 when her mother executed the above-mentioned sale deed in respect of his share and since the proceeding for mutation was based on the said Sale Deed that makes the order of mutation nonest against him. Further, the Board of Revenue has recorded a categorical finding that no notice was issued to the parties on the transfer of the case from the court of Naib-Tehsildar, Padrauna to the Court of Naib-Tehsildar, Khadda and the order was passed ex-parte which amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 29. The aforesaid facts of the instant case explicitly attracts the exceptions as carved out by this Court under which this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution may entertain a writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings. Accordingly the objections raised by the learned counsels for the respondents challenging the maintainability of the present writ petition, are over ruled. 30. The second issue which requires consideration of this court is with regards to paragraph (8) of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter to the trial Court to hear it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties with a direction to decide the same 'in the light of the finding recorded above'. Needless to say that if the higher court remands the matter with certain findings, either on facts or law, then such findings would be binding upon the lower court to which matter has been remanded. 31. Since, the finding as recorded by the Board of Revenue to the effect that the said sale deed dated 11.06.2009 is invalid for want of permission as required under Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 amounts to the adjudication regarding the validity of the said sale deed which is admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court in the summary proceedings and thereafter, remanding the matter to the trial court with a direction to decide the same afresh 'in the light of the finding recorded above' restricts the scope of fresh adjudication by the trial court so much so that even while deciding the matter afresh, the trial court is bound by the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order. As such, the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue in paragraph (7) of the impugned order to the effect that the sale deed is invalid deserves to be expunged. 32. Now, in so far as the question of requirement of remanding the matter to the trial court is concerned, it is a settled legal position that an order of remand should not be passed in a routine manner as it prolongs and delays the litigation, which runs contrary to serving the cause of justice. However, there could, of course, be several eventualities which may justify an order of remand or where remand would be rather necessary depending on the facts and the given set of circumstances of a case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivkumar and others versus Sharanabasappa and others reported in (2021) 11 SCC 227, has categorically held as follows, "26.2. …the appellate court has the inherent power of remanding a case where it was considered necessary to do so in the interest of justice." 33. In the instant case, where the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, by the above mentioned Siddhant Gupta-respondent no. 2, who was minor at the time of execution of the sale deed by his mother, in respect of his share, admittedly deserves opportunity to raise his claim before the competent court having jurisdiction. In the instant case, where the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, by the above mentioned Siddhant Gupta-respondent no. 2, who was minor at the time of execution of the sale deed by his mother, in respect of his share, admittedly deserves opportunity to raise his claim before the competent court having jurisdiction. From the perusal of the document annexed with this writ petition, it is evident that the aforesaid Siddhant Gupta-respondent no. 2 did not get due opportunity to present his case before the court of Tehsildar who passed the order for mutation and further, the Board of Revenue on finding that no notice was issued to the parties on the transfer of the case from the court of Naib-Tehsildar, Padrauna to the Court of Naib-Tehsildar, Khadda, renders the mutation order ex-parte which amounts to violation of the principle of audialteram partem. As such, the order passed by the Board of Revenue remanding the matter to the court of Tehsildar, Khadda to pass order on merits after affording opportunity of hearing is reasonable and justified. 34. In view of all that is stated hereinabove, the finding as recorded by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order to the extent of adverting to the legality of sale deed dated 11.06.2009 and directing the Tehsildar to decide the matter in the light of the said findings; is wholly unwarranted being dehors of jurisdiction. I have no doubt that the Board of Revenue ought not to have made such a finding. By recording such a finding, the Board of Revenue in a summary proceeding has virtually assumed the powers and functions of Civil Court. This Court, therefore, expunges the findings in respect of the legality of the Sale Deed 11.06.2023 as mentioned in paragraphs (5), (7) and (8) of the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue. 35. The order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the aforesaid order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar, needs no interference. 35. The order passed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the aforesaid order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar, needs no interference. So far as the said order of Board of Revenue remanding the matter to the Court of Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar is concerned, the same is affirmed only to the extent that the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar shall decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, after affording due opportunity of hearing to concerned parties, within a period of four months. 36. It is made clear that the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar shall decide the matter afresh, without being influenced by the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue regarding the legality of the said sale deed dated 11.06.2009. 37. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is partly allowed. 38. No order as to cost.