JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Qazi Mohd. Ahmad, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Admittedly, in the present case, the proceeding arising out of Section 34 of the U.P. L.R. Act an order 30.04.2003 has been passed, thereafter in a revision the order dated 10.12.2007 has been passed by Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow, so taking into the said fact as well as the 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. 3. 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 ). 4. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. 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 ). 4. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. However, as prayed, the petitioner, if so advised, she may approach before appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances which she has raised in the present writ petition, may file regular suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and if the same is done, the matter should be decided on merit.