AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent no. 4, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
(2.) THE petitioner, son of Mohd. Shafi, claims to have inherited the property under a gift deed executed by his father during his life time along with his brother the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 4 appears to have been dissatisfied with the said gift deed dated 18.5.2002 and filed a suit for cancellation of the same being Original Suit No. 459 of 2003. The said suit continued in the which the father of the petitioner was also one of the defendants and after sometime there appears to have been a compromise in the suit on the basis whereof the same came to be decreed under the order dated 21st July, 2004. Mutation proceedings were undertaken and a report was submitted by the Lekhpal. The mutation application was dismissed in default whereafter a restoration was moved by the petitioner. The restoration application was rejected and the revision against the same was also dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court and it is urged that the authorities below have taken a totally erroneous view on the restoration matter by indicating that since the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 are claiming mutation on the strength of a decree of the civil court therefore the application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, would not be maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner or the respondent no. 4 had not approached the Tehsildar for the execution of the decree of the civil court, rather they had staked their claim on the basis of a gift deed and the compromise order was taken in support as an evidence. It is therefore urged that the mutation application was very much maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the petition, inasmuch as, the mutation application had not been moved by him and secondly that the decree of the civil court can be executed through the provisions of Order XXI before the Executing Court itself and not through an application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901.;