JUDGMENT K. Kishore, Member - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a case of correction of papers against the order of the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated May 19, 1980. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Sardar Basant Singh filed a correction of papers application on November 3, 1977 Shafi Hasan filed objections. During the pendency of the case, Sardar Basant Singh died. Sardar Ranjeet Singh son of the deceased recorded tenure holder filed a substitution application on July 25, 1978 for substituting him and his brother Sardar Bhagat Singh as legal heirs of the deceased. Shafi Hasan filed objections that there is no provision for substitution under the Land Revenue Act or the Revenue Court Manual and that the substitution application is barred by Section 34(5) of Land Revenue Act. After hearing both the parties the S.D.O. Kannauj allowed substitution on September 27, 1978 and ordered for amendment accordingly. Being aggrieved by this order of the S.D.O., Shafi Hasan went in revision before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed it vide his order darted May 19, 1980. Shafi Hasan has now come in revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and seen the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the Revisionists argued that the applicability of Order XXII, C.P.C. was restricted by para 179 of the Revenue Court Manual whereby it could be invoked only in respect of appeals under the Land Revenue Act. He contended that since the applicant in this case had died before the proceedings were finalised at the trail court stage substitution of his heirs under Order XXII was not permissible. 5. The counsel for the O.P. referred me to Appendix I of Revenue Court where, under para 60 of the Revenue Court Manual, Order XXII C.P.C. Rule 1-3 have been made applicable to the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act. Under para 179, Order XXII C.P.C. as a whole has been made applicable to these proceedings without any reservation. 6. I am of the view that notations in Appendix I of the Revenue Court Manual exclusively pertain to those provisions of C.P.C. which have been made applicable to the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act and these provisions would over-ride the restrictions contained in para 179 Revenue Court Manual. 6. I am of the view that notations in Appendix I of the Revenue Court Manual exclusively pertain to those provisions of C.P.C. which have been made applicable to the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act and these provisions would over-ride the restrictions contained in para 179 Revenue Court Manual. Order XXII is the only vehicle which carries the litigation forward in the event of the death of a litigant whether he is a defendant or plaintiff. It would be fatuous to presume that a demised plaintiff-defendant can be substituted only if the death occurred at the appellate stage. In para 179 of the Revenue Court Manual were to be taken seriously and the applicability of Order XXII restricted to the appellate stage, what would happen to proceedings under the Land Revenue Act in the event of the death of either party at earlier stages. No proceedings can survive against a dead person. No order can be passed against a dead person. Would the proceedings automatically be killed in the event of the death of either party to the proceedings? Such cannot have been the intention of the legislature. It is the duty of the Collector to maintain the record of rights and all proceedings invoking mutation by succession or transfer or correction have to be properly concluded. These processes cannot be thwarted by death. The proceedings have the survive on the death of either party and that would only be possible if free recourse to Order XXII is available. 7. I would in the end hold that Order XXII C.P.C. is applicable to all proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act and, therefore, the substitution allowed in this case is in order. The revision is dismissed.