JUDGMENT & ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition is directed against the order passed under section 34 of Land Revenue Act regarding mutation of name of the petitioner and respondents. The dispute being raised in the present petition is with regard to the distribution of share by the revenue authorities while passing the mutation order. 3. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that a suit under section 229-B has already been filed wherein both the parties are contesting for their rights by way of inheritance. In view of the same, the order passed in mutation proceeding need not be interfered. 4. It is also noteworthy that the mutation does not confer any right or title in favour of any of the parties as the said order is passed in a summary proceeding. It is, therefore, observed that the determination of share of the parties by the revenue authorities in the mutation order would not come in their way in the pending suit. The competent Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made therein. 5. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of.