JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a reference dated January 24, 1972 made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in a case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 2. Doongar had applied for mutation of his name on the basis of a sale deed executed by Smt. Gaura. On issue of proclamation Smt. Gaura herself filed an application alleging that she had not executed any sale deed, that she had not received any money in lieu of the land and a case was pending in the civil court in respect of the deed. 3. The trial court found that permission had been obtained from the S.O. (C.) for transfer of the land and the case for cancellation of the deed had been dismissed by the civil court. The Sanad Bhumidhari had also been issued to the vendor and the deed itself was genuine. Mutation was ordered. In revision, the Additional Commissioner has recommended that the order of the trial court be upheld, but with the modification that the names of the three vendees should be entered against the entire land in suit. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that there had been no compliance of paragraph A-367 of the Revenue Court Manual as no affidavit had been filed under Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the two vendees other than Doongar. 5. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be upheld. Under the Paragraphs following A-367 of the Revenue Court Manual the responsibility and duty rests upon the revenue authority concerned to see that all the requirements of the law are fulfilled before mutation is ordered. Paragraph A-372 of the Revenue Court Manual in particular throws the duty upon the Tahsildar to call for additional documents or evidence that may be required before a decision was taken. A mutation application is really a mutation report under the law and the duty of the person reporting is over once he has the person reporting is over once he has brought to the notice of the authority concerned that a case for mutation exists. It is open only to the revenue authorities to raise the objection that the requirements of Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act have not been fulfilled. It is open only to the revenue authorities to raise the objection that the requirements of Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act have not been fulfilled. It is unfortunate that the impression appears to persist that the burden of pursuing mutation proceedings rests upon private parties and not upon the Collector and other revenue authorities, who are actually required by law to maintain correct and upto date revenue records. The revenue officials concerned are expected to act on their own initiative in all matters requiring mutation and the fact that the law has given the privilege of bringing to the notice of the authority concerned any case requiring mutation which may have escaped their notice does not absolve the authorities of their own responsibilities in the matter. In the present case, the fact that there were two other vendees besides Doongar who reported for mutation, does not absolve the revenue authorities from the responsibility mutating their names once they had become aware of the sale deed and the fact that the land had been sold to three persons and not only Doongar. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the sale deed had not been proved. He cited rulings reported in 1971 R.D. 266 and 1968 A.I.R. S.C. 947 in support of his contention. These rulings cannot help him in any way in view of the judgment by the learned Munsif, Kasganj dated October 30, 1968 by which the sale deed has been held to be genuine and valid. 7. Learned counsel has also argued that there is nothing to show that the vendor was a Bhumidhar of the land. The argument cannot be sustained in view of the permission given by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on April 6, 1968 to the vendor to sell the land. It has to be presumed legally that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would have given permission only to a Bhumidhar to sell her land. 8. The last contention of the learned counsel was that the sale was male during consolidation and without the permission of the consolidation authorities concerned. This objection cannot be sustained in view of the permission of the S.O.C. dated April 6, 1964. 9. 8. The last contention of the learned counsel was that the sale was male during consolidation and without the permission of the consolidation authorities concerned. This objection cannot be sustained in view of the permission of the S.O.C. dated April 6, 1964. 9. The revision application is dismissed and the order of the trial court held with the amendment that the land in suit should be mutated in the name of all the three vendees as recommended by the Additional Commissioner.