This revision has been filed against the order dated 20-1-1981 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Rampur, in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 1980 arising out of a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. 2. Facts giving rise to this revi sion are these:

"one Badan Singh was tenure-holder of Chak No. 11 measuring 3. 34 acres in village Bichpura, Lalji Tehsil Shahabad, district Rampur. He agreed to sell his land to Himanchal Singh, Yad Ram Singh and Badri Singh revisionists. It is said that he executed a sale deed in his favour on 14-7-1978 but he did not get the sale deed regis tered. On 18-7-1978 Badan Singh executed another sale deed of the same land in favour of Ram Autar Singh, opposite party, and got the sale deed registered on the same day. On 18-8-1978 i. e. one month after the execution of the sale deed in favour of Ram Autar Singh, Himanchal Singh and others presented the sale deed said to have been executed on 14-7-1978 before the Sub-Registrar and desired its compulsory registration. Their sale deed was registered on 31-8-1978. Mutation proceedings started between the parties before the Tehsildar Shahabad. By order dated 31-3-1980 the Tehsil dar passed order of mutation in favour of Ram Autar Singh. Himanchal Singh and others pre ferred an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar, before the S. D. M. Shahabad. Their appeal was dis missed. 3. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C, started between the parties before the S. D. M. The Magistrate could not come to the conclusion as to which party was in actual physical possession of the land and, therefore, he passed order that the land would remain under attachment till the matter was decided by a competent Court (vide order dated 6-9-1979 ). On the basis of the mutation order Ram Autar Singh moved the Magis trate to release the land in his favour. Himanchal Singh and others filed a revision before Additional Commis sioner. Rohilkhand against the appellate order of S. D. M. in the mutation case and the Additional Commissioner passed a stay order. It means that the Additional Com missioner directed that the mutation be not carried out. But prior to the stay order the name of Ram Autar Singh was mutated in the Khataunt. In view of the stay order, the S. D. M. refused to release

the land under Sec tion 145 Cr. P. C, in favour of Ram Autar Singh (vide order dated 9-7-1980 ). Against this order Ram Autar Singh filed criminal revision No. 97 of 1980 before the Sessions Judge, Rampur. The revision was heard and allowed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur on 20-1-1979. The Additional Sessions Judge held that notwithstanding the stay order passed by the Additional Commis sioner the Magistrate should have released the land in favour of Ram Autar Singh because mutation order stood in his favour, the Additional Sessions Judge took support for his view from the cases of Vinai Kumar v. Om Prakash 1980 A. C. C. 24, and Maqsood Ali Khan v. Ahmad Saeed Khan 1957 A. W. R. (H. C.)113. It is against this order of the 1st Addi tional Sessions Judge that Himanchal Singh and others have preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Sri B. D. Mandhyan. Advocate, appearing for the revisionist has urged that the sale deed in favour of the revisionists was earlier in time, that by subsequent sale deed dated 18-7-1978 no title passed to Ram Autar Singh, that, therefore, the order of mutation in favour of Ram Autar Singh was against the provisions of law, that after the amendment of Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act it was not necessary for the mutation Court to pass an order of mutation on the basis of actual possession and that the mutation Court could pass an order of mutation on the basis of title. 5. Section 35 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, was amended by U. P. Act No. 30 of 1975. Prior to the amendment this section was in two parts. The first part related to an application for mutation on the ground of succession under Section 34 (1) (