Anil Kumar, J.— Matter is taken in revised cause list. 2. None appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents. 3. Heard Sri Mohd. Sadab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. learned State Counsel and perused the record. 4. The controversy in the present case relates to land recorded in Gata no. 165/0.20 Dec., 166/0.360 Dec., 167/0.275 Dec. and 100/20,200 Dec. situate at village Bahraich Khas, pargana, Tehsila and District Bahraich. 5. As per version of the petitioner, he has purchased the land from the original tenure holder. Accordingly, his name was mutated in the revenue record as per order dated 9.6.1961 and he was in possession. 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of report of Lekhpal and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, his name has been removed from the revenue record ex parte as such he moved an application for recall of the ex parte order, which was rejected. Aggrieved by the said fact, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, dismissed by order dated 24.8.2000. Aggrieved by the said fact, petitioner filed revision before opposite party no.1/ Additional Commissioner ( Administration ) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2003. In view of the above said factual background, petitioner for redrsssal of his grievance has filed the present writ petition. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the position which emerge out in the present case that the proceedings are arising out Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act . It is settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act does not decide the right and title of the parties. The object of mutation proceedings is as to form whom the State has to recover the land revenue. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided. 8. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided. 8. Further, it is settled view of this Court that it should not interfere with the order issued by the authorities while deciding the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, as in the said proceedings the issue only in respect to record the name of tenure holder in the revenue record is under consideration. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title of property in question and his right is to be established as per the procedure provided under law (See Jaipal Vs.Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, 1956 ALJ 807, Smt. Lakhpati and another Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1984 RD 378, State of U.P. through Collector, Agra Vs. Board of Revenue at Lucknow and others, 1993 RD, 206, Shiv Raj Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknokw and others, 1989(2) AWC 947 , Pooran Singh Vs. Baord of Revenue and others, 2004(1) AWC 853 and Ram Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others, 2003 (1) AWC 505 ) 9. Thus, in view of the above said facts as the dispute involved in the present case is arising out of Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, as such the petitioner has got an alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act before the competent court so the present writ petition is not maintainable on the said ground and is liable to be dismissed . 10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner. 11. However, keeping in view of the peculiar facts of the present case as stated above, it is provided that the petitioner is permitted to raise his grievance which he has raised in the present writ petition by filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act alongwith an application for interim relief/ injunction before the appropriate authority/ court within a period of ten weeks from the date of receiving of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter the said authority/ Court shall consider and decide the application for interim relief within a further period of four weeks. 12. For a period of fourteen weeks or till the decision is taken by the authority/ court on the application for interim relief/ injunction whichever is earlier, parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists today. _____________