JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

In view of office report dated 19.4.2022 service upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is deemed sufficient.

2. Heard Udai Chandani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N.Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

3. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 3) dated 18.1.2020, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation holding that on the basis of decree of compromise or settlement made by the competent Court, mutation proceedings cannot be initiated.

4. Petitioner's appeal against the order dated 18.1.2020 has also come to be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Dy. Collector (Revenue), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2) by order dated 20.12.2021 confirming the order of respondent No. 3.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once suit has been decreed under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and the said decree has remained un-appealed against and has thus attained finality, then the name of decree holder is required to be mutated in the revenue records. He submits that the application for correction of records would lie in those cases only where wrong entry has been carried out on the part of the revenue authorities or any omission has taken place. He submits that here is a case where petitioner filed a suit for declaratory rights under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and was decreed on the basis of compromise reached between recorded tenure holder and the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner's application for mutation was absolutely maintainable.

6. Per contra, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that once revenue authorities have entered the name in the revenue records of a tenure holder, who is a rightful claimant and if somebody has obtained the order on the basis of compromise, it is a case were right is to be taken as to have always existed and so no entry of such a person in revenue records be taken as omission and so application would lie for correction of records. It is further submitted that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 under Section 34 and 35 mutation may not be permissible on the basis of a decree of Court of law in view of other provisions contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their respective arguments raised across the bar, I find that Sections 34 and 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for mutation to be carried out in the revenue records by way of succession or transfer which also includes family settlement. Sections 33, 34 and 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are reproduced herein below.

Section 33. (1) Every person obtaining possession of any land by succession shall submit report of such succession to the Revenue Inspector of the circle in which the land is situate in such form as may be prescribed.

(2) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1) or on facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Revenue Inspector shall -

(a) if the case is not disputed, record such succession in the record of rights (Khatauni);

(b) in any other case, make such inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary and submit his report to the Tahsildar.

[(3)] Any person whose name has not been recorded by Revenue Inspector or is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Inspector [under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2)] may move an application before Tahsildar.

[(4)] The provisions of this section shall mutatis mutandis apply to every person admitted as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or as an asami by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in accordance with the provisions of this Code or any enactment repealed by it.

34. Duty to report in cases of transfer-[(1)] Every person obtaining possession of any land by transfer, other than transfer referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 33 shall re