JUDGMENT S.K. Sarkar, Chairman - This is revision under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act preferred on behalf of Smt. Ram Rati against the order dated 9.10.71 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Meerut Division in revision arising out of the orders dated 4.1.74 of Assistant Collects Bulandshahar in a case of mutation. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 6.7.72 Nanak Chand and his three brothers executed a sale deed in favour of one Kanchhid Singh. The vendee applied for mutation. Kaley and Smt. Ram Rati filed separate objections. Kaley claimed his possession on the basis of an agreement of sale. Smt. Ram Rati claimed herself to be a co-sharer in the land in dispute having share in it. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer after taking evidence of the parties upheld the transfer by Nanak Chand and Prem Chand but did not recognise it so far as Puran Chand and Rajendra Kumar, venders, are concerned, because they were minors and no permission of the District Judge for transfer was obtained. Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Ram Rati filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, who dismissed it and hence the present revision before the Board by Smt. Ram Rati. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that when in earlier proceedings under Section 34 it was held that the respondents were not heirs any one claiming title on the basis of sale deed by such person will be subject to the orders passed by the learned Naib Tahsildar in regular proceedings under Section 34, of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Learned counsel also argued that the learned Additional Commissioner has stated wrongly in his orders dated 9.10.74 that Smt. Ram Rati was not recorded tenure-holder. She was recorded under the orders dated 12.11.73 of Naib Tahsildar and the Amaldaramad of that order of the Naib Tahsildar is also, there in the Khatauni. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposite parties argued that the name of their parent had been entered over the land in suit on the basis of a decision in a regular suit, and so they succeeded him as his heirs and they were fully entitled to inherit his estate. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and have also gone through the record of the case. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and have also gone through the record of the case. In the earlier proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act it was held that the respondents were not the heirs of the recorded tenure-holder, so that anyone claiming title on the basis of the sale deed executed by such persons will be subject to the orders passed in the regular suit under section 34. The name of the vendors were ordered to be entered by the S.K. under section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Law is well settled that any order made by the S.K. under section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would be subject to subsequent orders passed in proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The orders passed by the learned trial court in this case and the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner upholding those orders and dismissing the revision cannot, therefore, be upheld. Thus, no title could pass to the respondents on the basis of sale deed executed by persons who were not found entitled to the estate as heirs in regular proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar. The entry in their favour by the S.K. under Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which were subsequently set aside by the learned Naib Tahsildar through his orders dated 12.11.73 would, therefore, give no claim to the respondents to have their names mutated over the land in suit. 6. The result is that the application for mutation moved on behalf of Kanchhid Singh is dismissed and the name of Smt. Ram Rati is ordered to be mutated on the basis of the orders passed by the learned Naib Tahsildar dated 1 2.11.73.