OMPAL Vs. RAJPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to this Bench is related to a ruling given by the then Member of the Board of Revenue reported in 1983 Allahabad Vidhi Nirnaya 106 which is to the effect that where transfer is not made by the recorded tenant himself the name of the transferee cannot be mutated in his place.

(2.) We have heard arguments of learned counsels.

(3.) On the one hand it has been argued that Sec. 35 of the Land Revenue Act makes it obligatory for a revenue authority to the annual register if a succession or transfer appears to have taken place either on receiving a report of succession or transfer or upon facts otherwise coming to its knowledge. Therefore, where a mutation applicant is moved by a transferee claiming title from a vendor whose name has not yet been mutated but it has been brought to the knowledge of the court that the vendor had derived title in some way from the recorded tenant, the revenue authority should take cognizance of the transfer and amend the annual register accordingly.