JUDGMENT Jayant Banerji, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha. The respondent no.3 is represented by Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel, who has filed a vakalatnama today in Court and which is taken on record. The respondent no.5 is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has filed a caveat application. 2. All the parties are represented. With their consent, this case is taken up for final disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad. 4. The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of a sale-deed dated 08.07.2015, the petitioner had sold only 69.71 sq. mts. land out of the entire share of his land, to Smt. Shalini Sahu. It is stated that the court, where the mutation proceedings were pending, passed an order dated 08.09.2015 observing that the entire share of the petitioner has been transferred. The petitioner filed a restoration application which was dismissed and against that order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision being Case No.REV/1941/2020/Jaunpur, Computerized Case No. AL20201436001941. The aforesaid revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue by the order dated 28.07.2022. The operative portion of the order is quoted below:- ^^mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 16-10-2020 ,oa 08-09-2015 fujLr fd, tkrs gSaA i=koyh voj U;k;ky; dks bl funZs'k ds lkFk izfr izsf"kr dh tkrh gS fd [kljk la[;k 26@02@0-121 gs0 esa ls fodzhr {ks=Qy 69-71 oxZ ehVj ds laca/k esa gh ukekUrj.k dh dk;Zokgh dj mHk;i{k dks lquokbZ dk volkj nsrs gq, xq.knks"k ij okn dk fuLrkj.k vf/kdre 02 ekg esa djsaA LFkxu] ;fn dksbZ gks rks og Hkh] fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh lR;izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky;ksa ds vfHkys[k izsf"kr fd, tk;saA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA** 5. It is contended that thereafter a review application was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 5 praying for setting aside the order dated 28.07.2022. It is contended that thereafter a review application was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 5 praying for setting aside the order dated 28.07.2022. By the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, the Board of Revenue proceeded to set aside its own order dated 28.07.2022 and the revision was directed to be restored to its original number. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the powers of the Board of Revenue to review and alter its order or decree have been circumscribed by the provisions of Section 220 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is contended that under the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Act, a single member vested with all or any of the powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by the Board or by any member other than himself. 6. A perusal of the first order of the Board of Revenue dated 28.07.2022 reveals that it was passed by Shri Amar Nath Upadhyay, IAS, whereas the second order dated 16.01.2023 was passed by Shri Sahab Singh, IAS. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents as well as counsel appearing for the other respondents have strongly opposed the writ petition stating that the order dated 28.07.2022 was wholly ex-parte and was passed without issuing of any notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the respondents and, therefore, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the order and restore the case to its original number. It has further been contended that the petitioner has instituted a suit for rectification of the sale-deed which fact has been concealed in the present writ petition. 8. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the powers of the Board to review and alter its orders or decrees are governed also by the mandate appearing in sub-section (3) of Section 220 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Section 220 is quoted as under:- "220. Power of Board to review and alter its order and decrees. - (1) The Board may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any order made by itself or by any of its members in the course of business connected with settlement. Section 220 is quoted as under:- "220. Power of Board to review and alter its order and decrees. - (1) The Board may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any order made by itself or by any of its members in the course of business connected with settlement. (2) No decree or order passed judicially by it or by any of its members shall be so reviewed except on the application of a party to the case made within a period of ninety days from the passing of the decree or order, or made after such period if the applicant satisfies the Board that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. (3) Members not empowered to alter each other's orders. - A single member vested with all or any of the powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by the Board or by any member other than himself." 9. The revision arises out of mutation proceedings. It needs no iteration that mutation proceedings do not confer any substantive title on any party. The proceedings are to be decided by the competent authority on the basis of possession for the purpose of payment of revenue and any party aggrieved is entitled to enforce his substantive claim by filing a suit before the appropriate forum. 10. In any view of the matter, the previous order of the Board of Revenue dated 28.07.2022, the operative portion of which has been quoted here-in-above, directs the mutation proceedings to be concluded within a period of two months, after hearing all the parties concerned. In view of the jurisdictional issue that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, the order dated 16.01.2023 cannot survive and is hereby quashed. 11. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed leaving it open to the private respondents to agitate their claim in the mutation before the authority concerned, if the proceedings are still pending. It goes without saying that it is always open for the private respondents to approach the appropriate forum by filing a suit in accordance with law for enforcement of any substantive claim or title that they may have on the property in question. 12. It is being made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on entitlement of any of the parties to the property in question.