RAMPATIA Vs. SANGRAM, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner under his order dated Dec. 31, 1963 on an application in revision under Sec. 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act passed by the Tahsildar, Phulpur, district Azamgarh in a case for mutation.

(2.) Sarju was recorded as the sole sirdar of the disputed land. He died on Jan. 4, 1962. The Supervisor Kanungo treated the case as undisputed. He found that Smt. Rampatia was the daughter of Sarju. Therefore, he corrected the records in her favour by his order dated March 31, 1962. Subsequently Sangram and others, opposite parties moved an application for mutation before the Tahsildar. They claimed that they were Sarju's brother's son's sons. The Tahsildar ordered mutation in their favour. Hence the present revision has been filed. The Additional Commissioner has recommended that the revision be allowed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that since correction has previously been made in favour of the revisionist under Sec. 33-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 35 of the said Act.