JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, Chairman - The only point which arises for decision in this case is whether on receipt of information of sale of Evacuee Property from the Assistant Custodian the mutation court has to follow the procedure laid down in the U.P. Land Revenue Act or it has to carry out the mutation without following any such procedure. 2. It appears that in Mariahun, district Jaunpur the Tahsildar concerned was intimated about the sale of certain Khewat numbers in favour of the present revisionist. On January 18, 1977, the Tahsildar passed the order of mutation. Restoration application was filed by the present O.P. NO. 1 who claimed that in the Khatauni he and his father before him had since long been recorded and he was not heard before mutation order was passed. On April 19, 1978, the Tahsildar by a short order rejected this application stating that since the mutation had been done on the basis of the sale certificate of the Assistant Custodian only that authority was competent to set aside that order and, therefore, Sri Kamla Prasad should approach that authority. An appeal was filed and the S.D.O. not agreeing with the view of the Tahsildar set aside that order and remanded the case for bearing on merits. A revision before the Assistant Commissioner not having succeeded, the present revision has been filed before the Board. 3. In arguments before me learned counsel for the revisionist contended that mutation courts had no power to look behind the he sale certificate issued by the Assistant Custodian of the Evacuee property. It was claimed that the original order of the Tahsildar dated January 18, 1977 was purely an administrative order passed under paragraph 39 of the Revenue Court Manual and, therefore, no appeal lay before the S.D.O. It was further argued that even if the Opposite Party was in possession, under Section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act such a person shall be deemed to be holding on behalf of the Custodian of the Evacuee Property. Learned counsel for the opposite Party on the other hand argued that the order of the Tahsildar was a judicial order and for passing it he had to observe the provisions under the U.P. Land Revenue Act which relate to mutation. Learned counsel for the opposite Party on the other hand argued that the order of the Tahsildar was a judicial order and for passing it he had to observe the provisions under the U.P. Land Revenue Act which relate to mutation. He argued that there is no such law which would confer jurisdiction on the Tahsildar to pass an order of mutation on the basis of Assistant Custodian's sale certificate without following procedure prescribed by law. 4. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the above arguments. The U.P. Land Revenue Act is a self-contained Act dealing inter alia with the maintenance of land records. A detailed procedure has been prescribed for effecting changes in the record of rights and no exemption has been given. Section 35 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Tahsildar on receiving a report of succession of transfer. The letter of the Assistant Custodian reporting the sale of a particular property or a particular interest in the land has not been conferred any higher status than that of a report of transfer. This transfer having been reported by the Assistant Custodian it was the duty of the Tahsildar under Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act to make such inquiries as were necessary and only thereafter can be order the register to be amended accordingly. The procedure read with other Sections of the Act and the Revenue Court Manual involves the issue of a proclamation receipt of objections, hearing of parties and thereafter an order on findings arrived at judicially. The reference to Paragraph 39 of the Revenue Court Manual is misconceived because it appears in Chapter I which deals with general conduct of business and procedure in revenue courts and applies only to an order of the revenue court which involves a change in the Lekhpal's records. It is certainly true that once the Assistant Custodian has reported a sale in respect of a declared Evacuee Property the mutation court cannot redetermine whether the property or interest involved was or was not the interest of an evacuee but other matters raised by an objector can certainly be considered. It is certainly true that once the Assistant Custodian has reported a sale in respect of a declared Evacuee Property the mutation court cannot redetermine whether the property or interest involved was or was not the interest of an evacuee but other matters raised by an objector can certainly be considered. To give only a few instances the objector may claim that the sale certificate is bogus and had not really been issued by the Assistant Custodian or that the identify of the property had been mistakenly given or that only some particular interest in the property had been transferred etc. The application of Section 8(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act would only arise if the objector claims land holder's rights on the basis of adverse possession or on such analogous provisions. The order of the Tahsildar therefore, ordering mutation without following the procedure of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is entirely without jurisdiction and his subsequent refusal to reopen the proceedings as not warranted by law was also clearly wrong. The order of the appellate court was perfectly right and so was the order of the first revisional court. Therefore, it calls no interference. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. The case will now go back to the Tahsildar who will hear the parties and pass order according to law subject to the observations made above.