Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. This petition has been filed for directing respondents to initiate mutation proceedings and sanction mutation of inheritance of the management of Dera Samadh Sanjhagir in favour of petitioner No.1. 2. The Dera Samadh Sanjhagir (petitioner No.2) is the owner of land measuring 380 kanals 16 marlas in village Kharar, Tehsil and District Hisar as per the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02. In the column of ownership, the land is recorded as "Samadh Sanjhagir Bae-tmam Nathugir Sakin Deh" and in the column of cultivation it is recorded as "Khudkast and Makbuja Malkan". Mahant Nathugir died on 2.11.2004. Anand Giri Mahant (petitioner No. 1) states that he has been appointed a new Mahant on 10.3.2006 by Juna Akhara. A writing (Anncxure P1)in this regard has been recorded which has been signed by a large number of persons present there on 10.3.2006. Itis submitted that petitioner No. 1 after being appointed as new Mahant and in view of the fact that previous entries in the revenue records were continuing in the name of deceased Mahant Nathugir an application dated 13.3.2006 (Annexure P2) was filed before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hisar (respondent No. 3) for recording the fact of acquisition of right of management by petitioner No. 1 of the property of Dera Samadh Sanjhagir (petitioner No. 2) in the revenue records. The said application (Annexure P2) was signed by a large number of villagers of village Kharar. The Tehsildar, Hisar made an endorsement on the application (Annexure P2) on 23.3.2006 for Patwari halqa to carry out proceedings in accordance with rules. It is submitted that although petitioner No. 1 had brought to the notice of the revenue authorities about acquisition of right of management, however, mutation proceedings are not being initiated. 3. Notice of motion was issued in the case and reply has been filed by the State. It is submitted that mutation of land is sanctioned when transfer of title is involved but in the present case title has not been changed. Therefore, in the circumstances, mutation cannot be sanctioned as stated by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is also submitted that no supporting documents have been supplied as to whether the resolution has been passed by the competent persons in accordance with the bye-laws, if any, of petitioner No. 2. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is also submitted that no supporting documents have been supplied as to whether the resolution has been passed by the competent persons in accordance with the bye-laws, if any, of petitioner No. 2. Besides, the petitioners have not submitted the said resolution in the civil suit tiled by them. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the question regarding entries and sanction of mutation are to be considered by the revenue authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ("Act" - for short). Section 34 of the Act provides for making of that part of the annual record which relates to land owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants. Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land owner, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, is to report his acquisition of the right to the Patwari of the estate. The Patwari is to enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) of Section 34 and is also to make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reasons to believe to have taken place. The stand taken by the respondents in their written statement is that no title to the property is shown to have been acquired by the petitioners. Besides, no supporting document had been supplied as to whether the resolution (Annexure P1) had been passed by the competent persons and bye-laws, if any, of Dera Samadh Sanjhagir (petitioner No. 2). It is also , submitted that the petitioners had not submitted the said resolution (Annexure P1) in the civil suit , filed by them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the civil suit filed by the petitioners has since been withdrawn before the filing of the present petition. In any case, it may be noticed that the effect of the resolution (Annexure P1) is to be considered either by the revenue authorities for the purposes of sanctioning mutation or by the civil Court. In any case, it may be noticed that the effect of the resolution (Annexure P1) is to be considered either by the revenue authorities for the purposes of sanctioning mutation or by the civil Court. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to embark into an inquiry and ascertain whether the resolution (Annexure PI) is valid or not. This is more so for the reason that the respondents have stated that the said resolution was not supplied to them. Therefore, it would be wholly improper for this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction to determine the disputed questions of fact. These would more appropriately be left to the domain of the revenue authorities or the civil Court as the case may be. Therefore, while declining to interfere in the matter, the petitioners are relegated to avail alternative remedies to either approach the revenue authorities or seek their remedy by way of civil suit. The fact of the death of earlier Mahant Nathugir on 2.1 1.2004 would also require to be established. Besides, the earlier entries which, it is stated, is recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 as "Samadh Sanjhagir.Bae-tmam Nathugir Sakin Deh" and whether it can be changed in favour of the petitioners is to be considered in accordance with law. However, it may be noticed for the purpose of recovery of land revenue and allied matters the Mohatmin or Manager is liable to be recorded in the revenue records in such capacity of the Samadh in question. It is not correct to say that the institution which is the owner of the property alone is to figure in the revenue records in the column of ownership and no entry is necessary in regard to the Mohatmin or manager of the property. In all such cases entries of ownership of the property in respect of institutions are normally made regarding management of the property under a Mohatmin or Manager and fresh mutations are to be entered and sanctioned after the death of a Mohatmin or manager. For the said purpose, however, the necessary rule or custom of succession is to be gone into and considered by the revenue authorities. The manner in which the succession of Mohatmin or Manager is to devolve is to be considered by the revenue authorities, which of course is subject to the decision of a civil Court. For the said purpose, however, the necessary rule or custom of succession is to be gone into and considered by the revenue authorities. The manner in which the succession of Mohatmin or Manager is to devolve is to be considered by the revenue authorities, which of course is subject to the decision of a civil Court. The earlier mutation sanctioned under the management of Nathugir can also provide a base for consideration of matter This exercise in -any case is to be undertaken by the revenue authorities in accordance with law. 6. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for issuing a mandamus as prayed for and the Petitioners may seek their remedies in accordance with law before the revenue authorities or the civil Court as they may deem fit. Accordingly, the civil writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the revenue authorities or the civil Court. Petition dismissed.