JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 2. Admittedly, present proceeding arises out of the Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act in which in orders have been passed by the authorities under Land Revenue Act which are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the core question which has to be decided in the present case whether the proceedings arises out of the Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act , the writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not? 4. It is settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act doe 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. 5. Further ,this Court 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 ). 6. 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 ). 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, as prayed, a liberty is given to the petitioners to agitate their claim under Section 144 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 , if so advise.