JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. In view of office report dated 19.4.2022 service upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is deemed sufficient. 2. Heard Udai Chandani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N.Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 3. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 3) dated 18.1.2020, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation holding that on the basis of decree of compromise or settlement made by the competent Court, mutation proceedings cannot be initiated. 4. Petitioner's appeal against the order dated 18.1.2020 has also come to be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Dy. Collector (Revenue), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2) by order dated 20.12.2021 confirming the order of respondent No. 3. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once suit has been decreed under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and the said decree has remained un-appealed against and has thus attained finality, then the name of decree holder is required to be mutated in the revenue records. He submits that the application for correction of records would lie in those cases only where wrong entry has been carried out on the part of the revenue authorities or any omission has taken place. He submits that here is a case where petitioner filed a suit for declaratory rights under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and was decreed on the basis of compromise reached between recorded tenure holder and the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner's application for mutation was absolutely maintainable. 6. Per contra, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that once revenue authorities have entered the name in the revenue records of a tenure holder, who is a rightful claimant and if somebody has obtained the order on the basis of compromise, it is a case were right is to be taken as to have always existed and so no entry of such a person in revenue records be taken as omission and so application would lie for correction of records. It is further submitted that under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 under Section 34 and 35 mutation may not be permissible on the basis of a decree of Court of law in view of other provisions contained in U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their respective arguments raised across the bar, I find that Sections 34 and 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for mutation to be carried out in the revenue records by way of succession or transfer which also includes family settlement. Sections 33, 34 and 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are reproduced herein below. Section 33. (1) Every person obtaining possession of any land by succession shall submit report of such succession to the Revenue Inspector of the circle in which the land is situate in such form as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1) or on facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Revenue Inspector shall - (a) if the case is not disputed, record such succession in the record of rights (Khatauni); (b) in any other case, make such inquiry as may appear to him to be necessary and submit his report to the Tahsildar. [(3)] Any person whose name has not been recorded by Revenue Inspector or is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Inspector [under clause (a) or (b) of sub-section (2)] may move an application before Tahsildar. [(4)] The provisions of this section shall mutatis mutandis apply to every person admitted as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or as an asami by the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in accordance with the provisions of this Code or any enactment repealed by it. 34. Duty to report in cases of transfer-[(1)] Every person obtaining possession of any land by transfer, other than transfer referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 33 shall report such transfer, in the manner prescribed, to the Tahsildar of the Tahsil in which the land as situate. Explanation.-(1) For the purposes of this section, the word transfer includes a family settlement [***]. [(2) State Government may fix a scale of fees for getting entry recorded in the record of rights on the basis of transfer. A fee in respect of any such entry shall be payable by the person in whose favour the entry is to be made.] 35. [(2) State Government may fix a scale of fees for getting entry recorded in the record of rights on the basis of transfer. A fee in respect of any such entry shall be payable by the person in whose favour the entry is to be made.] 35. Mutation in cases of succession or transfer.-(1) On the receipt of a report under Section 33 or Section 34, or upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Tahsildar shall issue a proclamation and make such inquiry as appears and - (a) if the case is not disputed, he shall direct the record of rights (Khatuani) to be amended accordingly; [***] [(c) if the case is disputed, he shall decide the dispute and direct, if necessary, the record of rights (khatauni) to be amended accordingly.] [(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahsildar under sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer within a period of thirty days from the date of such order.] 8. Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 talks about correction or error and omission. the main substantive provision of Section 38(1) is reproduced herein below. 38. Correction of error and omission.-(1) An application for correction of any error or omission in the map, field-book (Khasra) or record of rights (Khatauni) shall be made to the Tahsildar in the manner prescribed. (Emphasis added). 9. The language of Sub-section 4 of the Section 33 provides for mutation in the event a person is admitted as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or Asami by Land Management Committee. So the legislature intended mutation not only in cases of transfer and succession but also where rights are created under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 10. Upon reading of Section 34, it clearly transpires that in case of succession by way of transfer which includes family settlement, mutation application would be maintainable. 11. The words and phrase ''upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge'' is indication of intended of litigation to cover all such cases that may require mutation as and end right of any lawful proceedings drawn to enable Tehsildar to carryout mutation after holding due enquiry. 12. 11. The words and phrase ''upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge'' is indication of intended of litigation to cover all such cases that may require mutation as and end right of any lawful proceedings drawn to enable Tehsildar to carryout mutation after holding due enquiry. 12. From a bare reading of provisions of Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, I find that an application for correction of any error or omission in the map, field book (Khasra) or record of rights, shall be made to the Tehsildar in the manner prescribed. Sub-section 5 deals with those cases where the entries are manipulated in the records of Khasra and Khatauni, they may have to be expunged. Thus the two provisions operate in two different directions: while one permits the revenue authorities to entertain the mutation application to enter the name in the revenue records on the basis of succession/transfer which includes family settlement; the other provision provides that where entry may have been entered for some mistake on the part of the revenue authorities and if such an entry is found fraudulent, the entries are required to be expunged. 13. Besides what is discussed above, I find that Section 34(1) uses words and expression ''upon facts otherwise coming to his knowledge''. These words and expressions denote a situation where facts placed before the Tehsildar indicate a situation where a person's name is required to be entered into the records of rights as such rights got accrued. This power of Tehsildar besides being suo motu, can also be exercised upon application being made in that behalf. A declaratory decree of a competent revenue Court holding and declaring a person to be title holder of a land falling in a revenue village, would be such a case and, therefore, in such circumstances, if decree holder takes a plea before the Tehsildar that he having been declared owner in possession of the land, is entitled for mutation, Tehsildar concerned shall have to pass order thereupon and if someone disputes, he will decide the case on merits. 14. In such above view of the matter, therefore, in so far as the view taken by the Teshildar qua maintainability of mutation application appears to be misplaced. 14. In such above view of the matter, therefore, in so far as the view taken by the Teshildar qua maintainability of mutation application appears to be misplaced. In my considered view, if a person who is in possession of any land either by succession or otherwise having rightful claim, can apply for mutation by virtue of provisions contained under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and therefore, the person who has obtained decree, would be entitled to move an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to get the name mutated in the revenue records. A declaratory suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is a lawful proceeding under the Act and therefore, a suit if decreed, may be upon a compromises reached between the parties, such a decree unless and until set aside, is binding and mutation application for carrying out entry in revenue records would be maintainable under the Act. 15. The authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are worth consideration. In the case of Parabhu v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, 1968 SCC OnLine All 398 : 1968 RD 195, the Court declined to interfere in the order of the Board of Revenue whereby it had directed the Naib Tehsildar concerned to proceed and conclude the matter of mutation on the basis of decree passed by Civil Court, vide paragraph Nos. 5,6,7 and 8 it has been hed thus : 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the application on the ground that there was no evidence to show that plot No. 71 corresponds to the old plot No. 789 in respect of which civil litigation took place between the parties. The petitioners' revision was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate by affirming this finding and also on the ground that the Civil Court decree did not entitle the applicants to any right in respect of the whole of the plot No. 789 and that it could not be found out from the Civil Court judgments and decree as to in respect of what portion the right was granted in favour of the petitioners. He also doubted whether the finding of the Civil Court given in the suit for injunction had any binding effect on the parties. He also doubted whether the finding of the Civil Court given in the suit for injunction had any binding effect on the parties. The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners' revision on the ground that it agreed with the lower Court. 6. It has been stated in the present petition that there was no dispute between the parties that the old plot No. 789 was renumbered as plot No. 71 during consolidation operations. In fact, respondent No. 5, who had appeared in the witness-box, had admitted this fact. The authorities below were, therefore, in error in presuming that there was no evidence on the point. Further, the appellate judgment in the civil suit shows that the appellate Court had demarcated the area over which the petitioners were held entitled as owners in the map of the commissioner dated October 13, 1959. It cannot, therefore, be said that the decree was not executable or that the land given to the plaintiffs was not identifiable. The view of the Additional District Magistrate that the judgments of the Civil Courts were not binding on the parties does not appear to have any substance. Since the plot had been excluded from consolidation operations the title in respect of it could be adjudicated upon by the regular Courts. The decree of the appellate Court in the civil suits had become final and did operate as binding upon the parties. It was incumbent upon the revenue authorities to mutate the names according to that judgment. 7. It was urged that since the records were revised during consolidation operations, no application lay before the revenue authorities for mutation under Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act. In view of the further fact that the Civil Court decree declared the rights of the parties, that decree had to be effectuated in the revenue records. The application could not, therefore, be rejected on that ground. 8. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is sent back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh with a direction to decide the petitioners' application afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs. 16. 8. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is sent back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh with a direction to decide the petitioners' application afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs. 16. In the case of Satpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, the issue before Punjab and Haryana High Court was that application for mutation had been rejected on the ground that earlier mutation orders passed on the basis of Will and succession were not set aside by any declaratory decree in a suit in terms of Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It was argued before the High Court that decree of the Civil Court had attained finality up to the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, Ambala Cantt. was not justified in rejecting mutation application merely on the ground that earlier mutation orders were not challenged in civil suit proceedings and so those orders were binding. 17. The High Court referred to various authorities and finally held that the mutation application was maintainable and directed Naib Tehsildar concerned to decide the same. The discussions and observations made and the ultimate order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court are reproduced hereunder: ''In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sube Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 766, to submit that it has been held by the Division Bench that the approach adopted by the revenue authorities ignoring the decree of Civil Court, merely because a subsequent suit is pending, is erroneous, as the revenue authorities have to sanction the mutation on the basis of Civil Court decree. Learned senior counsel has further relied upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Bachan Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal (I), Punjab and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 887, wherein a similar view has been taken that the order passed by the Civil Court is binding on the revenue authorities and there is no requirement of a formal direction for incorporating the verdict of the Civil Court in the revenue record by sanctioning the mutation. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon judgment in Baljit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chaandigarh and others, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 384, wherein this Court has held that where under Section 34 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, mutation of inheritance is sanctioned ignoring the Civil Court decree, a revenue officer has no jurisdiction to disregard the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Learned senior counsel has next relied upon judgment in Rajesh Kumar v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2009 (11) RCR (Civil) 316, wherein this Court held that the mutations according to decree of the Court are to be given effect even if an appeal is pending against the decree and the revenue authorities are not bound to wait for order of the Court. It is argued that in this case, both the proprietary body as well as private individuals, who were contesting against the petitioners, lost their cases up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, on all counts, Naib Tehsilar-cum-Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt has erroneously ignored the Civil Court decree, as upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the ground taken by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt is that earlier mutations sanctioned in the year 1961-62 were already put up as defence before the Civi Court and once the Will dated 9.6.1917 in favour of Bhondu was upheld, those two mutations No. 543 and 735 looses their sanctity. It is also argued that during the aforesaid mutation proceedings, it is recorded that Thakur Singh made some concession, also stands tested by the Civil Court and this ground was never upheld by the Civil Court. The next ground taken by Naib Tehildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt that no specific suit for declaration under Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act has been filed challenging the mutations and for setting aside the same, is totally illogical and illegal, as once the decree has been passed, in which predecessor of the petitioners Bhondu was held to be owner of the land by way of Will dated 9.6.1917, it amounts to declaration regarding their title over the land in dispute. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present writ petition. None of the reasons given in the impugned order dated 18.5.2022 passed by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt are sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the observations made above. Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt has daringly ignored the judgment of the Civil Court, holding the Will dated 9.6.1917 to be a valid Will in favour of predecessor of the petitioners and this finding is upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is duty of revenue officials to incorporate the decree in the revenue record in letter and spirit and the impugned order dismissing the application for entering the mutations, cannot be upheld in any manner. Though this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed to violate the mandate of the decree, however, instead of initiating contempt proceedings, one opportunity is granted to Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt to pass a fresh order, strictly in compliance of the decree dated 14.8.1978, as upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.'' 18. Thus in view of the above legal prepositions as referred and discussed and since I do not find any reason to take a different view, the order of the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, Varnasi (Respondent No. 3) dated 18.1.2020 and the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Dy. Collector (Revenue), Tehsildar - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2) confirming the order dated 18.1.2020 are held unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly both the orders are hereby set aside. Mutation application of the petitioner before the Tehsildar stands restored and the Tehsildar (Respondent No. 3) is directed to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law by ensuring service of notice upon the parties concerned through an advertisement such as may be prescribed for and shall proceed to decide the matter after recording satisfaction regarding service of the notice upon all the parties concerned and also will give opportunity of hearing to the appearing parties. The entire proceeding shall be concluded by the Tehsildar (Respondent No. 3) positively within a period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of with no order as to cost.