Satish Chandra, C.J. and Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) A learned single Judge has referred this writ petition to a Division Bench as, in his opinion, the decision of the Division Bench in Bhurey v. Pir Bux, 1973 AWR 279 required reconsideration.
(2.) THE writ petition arose out of consolidation proceedings. The concurrent findings were that in view of the entries in the revenue papers, as well as the admission made by the Petitioners in a compromise arrived at between the parties in mutation proceedings in the revenue court, the Respondents were in joint possession, and, they were co -tenure holders. For the Petitioners, it was submitted that the consolidation courts, while deciding the question of title, were not entitled to take into consideration the admission made in the compromise filed before the revenue court in mutation proceedings. In support, reliance was placed upon Bhurey v. Pir Bux, 1973 AWR 279. This case is not applicable. In that case it was held : Reliance was also placed upon an admission of the predecessors of the Respondents in the mutation proceedings. It is well established that any consent or admission made in the mutation proceedings has no relevance in the regular title proceedings., Consequently, the alleged admission of Elahi Bux or Ali Bux is not admissible in the present title proceedings. The Deputy Director was in error in spelling out an exclusive title in Bhure on the basis of these admissions. These observations are not applicable to a case where the compromise in mutation proceedings or an admission contained therein is sought to be utilised to show that a particular party was in possession at the time of the compromise or thereafter. The admission in the present case was with respect to the possession of the Respondent. In mutation proceedings the court makes a direction as to mutation of names on the basis of possession. A finding given after contest or by consent of parties on the question of possession is within the jurisdiction of that court. Such a finding or admission would be relevant and material in subsequent title proceedings but on the question of possession at the time when the compromise was entered into in mutation proceedings.
(3.) BY utilising the admission on the question of possession, the necessary consequence is not the determination of title. That will depend upon other circumstances. But so far as the question of possession at a particular point of time is concerned, the admission contained in the compromise is admissible. In Bhure's case it was emphasised that an ' admission in mutation proceedings cannot be utilised to spell out title on the basis of those admissions. The case is clearly distinguishable.;