(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner , learned State Counsel and Sri Babar Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondents.
(2.) Controversy in the present case relates to plot no. 714 measuring 3 bigha and 1 biswa situate in village Mahatwana , Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi Hereinafter referred as ' land in question'). In respect to the said land , an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act has been moved . In pursuance to the same the names of Smt. Savitri Shukla and Vinay Shukla were mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter , petitioner moved an application for recall of the order dated 30.6.1973, the same was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 150/- . However, in the meantime, Smt. Savitri Shukla and Vinay Shukla sold the land in question. In view of the said fact, appeal was filed in the matter in question , allowed thereafter revision was filed by the petitioner , the same was dismissed by order dated 27.12.2003 ( Annexure no.1) in Revision No. 273(LR) of 2002/03, hence the present writ petition has been filed. This Court on 6.2.2004 has passed the interim order, the relevant portion is quoted as under:-
(3.) Admittedly, in the present case the proceedings are arising out Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act . It is settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act doe not decide the right and title of the parties. The object of mutation proceedings is as to form whom the State has to recover the land revenue. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided.