ORDER

1. This is application for review against the order dated 5th February 1988 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.

2. In the writ petition relief sought was for a writ of Mandamus directing the Distt. Magistrate/Collector Bareilly to effect a change in relevant village record transferring the land of Santosh Sanyukta Krishi Sahkari Samity Ltd. Changali Bareilly in its name, scoring out the name of individuals in whose name the land is entered and to do other associated formalities. The next relief sought was for a writ of Mandamus directing the Collection Officer of Collection Department and the Administrator of Society to render the accounts of the society to its members and to transfer the profits of the society in the account of the members of the society.

3. Learned-counsel for the petitioner urged that the writ petition was maintainable as there is no other appropriate authority to grant the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

4. It appears by means of a special leave petition. petitioner approached Supreme Court against the decision dated 5-2-88. Their Lordships of Supreme Court passed following order on 20-1-1989.

"Special leave petition is permitted to be withdrawn so that the petitioner may move the High Court."

5. The learned counsel for petitioner heard at considerable length.

6. The main relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the Distt. Magistrate to effect change or mutation in the relevant record of rights by expunging the name of the vendors and entering the names of vendees, actually seeking direction to the Collector to make mutation of the name of the petitioner similar to an application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901. Even though relief sought by the petitioner may be under different Act but legal effect of the order of mutation in that event also remains the same.

7. As a matter of fact the mutation proceedings maybe under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act or under some other similar Act, but the legal effect in both the events remains the same. These proceedings do not decide the right or title of the parties rather these proceedings are just fiscal in nature. They have just got legal effect of entering name of vendee in place of the vender or the name of lessees in place of lessor or donee in place of doner. These mutation proceedings are to enable the State to receive revenue from vandee.

8. By now it is well settled that there the' dispute is in mutation proceedings which do not adjudicate upon rights or title of the parties, this Court need not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such matters person aggrieved shall have right to seek remedy in the appropriate Court.

9. Even though the order of Division Bench was not detailed one, but in our opinion it is absolutely correct. There is no justification to review or recall the order dated 5-2-1988 passed by Division Bench, Review petition fails and is dismissed. It shall, however, remain open for the petitioner to seek remedy before appropriate Court.