JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 to 4. Shri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no. 5 while Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has appeared for respondent nos. 6 & 7. 2. The writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1642 of 2022 (Mukesh Das vs. Hari Das Chela Siyaram Das) has been questioned. By the impugned order the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the Revision in view of the provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 has been rejected and further date has been fixed for hearing on the admission of the Revision. 3. The dispute relates to Gata numbers 19 Kh, 137, 102 B, 106, 136 Kha, 19 K, 105 Kh, 151, 170 Kh, contained in Khata No. 83 of the village Bheeti Mafi, Pargana Mahli Purab, Tehsil Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, total area 2.3550 Hectare as also property part of Khata No. 44 i.e. Gata No. 102A area 6.1820 Hectares. On the basis of a forged Will dated 23.02.2017 the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 proceedings for mutation under Section 34/35 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated on 02.12.2019 and mutation Case No. 201917650104438 was registered before the Tehsildar respondent no. 4. By an order dated 18.05.2022, the respondent no. 4 held that the mutation involves question of succession under personal law, which can only be decided by a Competent Court of law and the Court of the Tehsildar cannot decide the controversy in summary proceedings of mutation and accordingly, the respondents 5, 6 and 7 were relegated to the Competent Civil Court to establish their rights and thereafter approach the Mutation Court. 4. The order dated 18.05.2022 was challenged by the respondent no. 5 before the Board of Revenue in Revision and the Board of Revenue under the impugned order rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the Revision and fixed the same for hearing on admission. 5. 4. The order dated 18.05.2022 was challenged by the respondent no. 5 before the Board of Revenue in Revision and the Board of Revenue under the impugned order rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the Revision and fixed the same for hearing on admission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in substance the Tehsildar under the order dated 18.05.2022 declined to pass orders on the Mutation Application of the respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 and the order was appealable under Section 35 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, and in such view of the matter the Board of Revenue manifestly erred in entertaining the Revision at the instance of the respondent no. 5 after rejecting the specific objection of the petitioner as regards maintainability of the Revision. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 18.05.2022 admittedly is an order passed under Section 35 (1) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 as the mutation case was disputed and the Tehsildar failed to decide the dispute. An appeal against such an order is provided under Section 35 (2) before the Sub Divisional Officer, which the respondent no. 5 did not avail and bye passing the said provision preferred a Revision before the Board of Revenue. It is also argued that the Revision under Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 was not maintainable on the face of it as Section 210 provides that Revision would lay only when no appeal lies. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the distinction between the provisions of Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act, 1950 which provides that a Revision may lay where an Appeal has been provided but not filed. He thus submits that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside and the writ petition allowed as prayed. 6. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. He thus submits that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside and the writ petition allowed as prayed. 6. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been filed sworn by Tehsildar, Tehsil Ghanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar in which in substance it has been averred that the order dated 28.11.2022 has rightly been passed by the Board of Revenue after perusing and considering the entire facts and materials on record and the order is just legal and in accordance with law. The writ petition is devoid of merit and not tenable. A separate short counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 1 sworn by the Commissioner Basti, Mandal Basti has been filed. The contesting respondents 5 to 7 have also filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit of the contesting respondent Nos. 5 to 7 the legal issues raised regarding the maintainability of the Revision before the Board of Revenue in the writ petition has not been answered and objection has been taken about the maintainability of the writ petition as it is directed against an interlocutory order. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit reiterating the averments in the writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. The moot question that arises for consideration by this Court is as to whether the order dated 18.5.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Ghanghata, Sant Kabir Nagar in proceedings under Section 34/35 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006 is an order amenable to an appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 or to a revision under Section 210 of the Code. 9. A perusal of the order dated 18.5.2022 passed by the Tehsildar reveals that the Tehsildar was of the view that the subject matter of the mutation proceedings was not in respect of the properties of any individual rather was debuttar property and any claim in respect thereof is to be decided on the basis of personal law as may be applicable and such adjudication was beyond his jurisdiction. The conclusion of the Tehsildar in his order dated 18.5.2022 is quoted hereunder:- 10. The conclusion of the Tehsildar in his order dated 18.5.2022 is quoted hereunder:- 10. The Tehsildar held that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter and relegated the parties to get a declaration of their rights from a competent Court and thereafter move for mutation. In substance, the mutation on the basis of the Will dated 23.2.2017 was declined. Admittedly, the order dated 18.5.2022 is an order passed under the provisions of Section 35 (1) (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 which reads as under:- “35. Mutation in cases of succession or transfer.- (1) On the receipt of a report under Section 33 or Section 34, or upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall issue a proclamation and make such inquiry as appears and - (a) if the case is not disputed, he shall direct the record of rights (Khatuani) to be amended accordingly; [***] [(c) if the case is disputed, he shall decide the dispute and direct, if necessary, the record of rights (khatauni) to be amended accordingly.]” 11. Admittedly, an order passed under Section 35 (1) (c) of the Code, 2006 is amenable to an Appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Code. The Board of Revenue has entertained the revision against the order dated 18.5.2022 rejecting the contention of the petitioner that no revision lay in the wake of the bar contained in Section 210 of the Code, 2006 itself and upholding the contention of the revisionist to the effect that the Tehsildar has not decided the mutation case on merits and in such circumstances, the order has been assailed in revision under Section 210 read with Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. 12. The Court is afraid that such an interpretation would not make the revision maintainable. An appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006 has been provided against an order/decision of the Tehsildar. The order dated 18.5.2022 has to be construed to be an order declining the mutation sought on the basis of the Will. In the opinion of the Court, the order dated 18.5.2022 was liable to be assailed in appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006 and not under a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. In the opinion of the Court, the order dated 18.5.2022 was liable to be assailed in appeal under Section 35 (2) of the Code, 2006 and not under a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. REV/1642/2022/Sant Kabir Nagar (Mukesh Das versus Hari Das Chela Siyaram Das) is set aside. The revision is held not maintainable. The parties are at liberty to take recourse to law against the order dated 18.5.2022 as advised. In the peculiar circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.