Satish Chandra, CJ and Yashoda Nandan, JJ.

The dispute relates to Bhumidhari plots Nos. 1361 and 1144. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Phool Chand had half share in both these plots, while Rajpati and Tahsildar together had the balanced half. He rejected the claim of the Petitioners that they were the exclusive Bhumidhars on the finding that Phool Chand's name continued to be recorded as co-bhumidhar in the revenue papers and that he was also in possession. For the Petitioner, reliance was placed upon a compromise between the parties in mutation proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that such a compromise has no bearing on the question of title.

2. For the Petitioners it was urged that an admission contained in a compromise reached in mutation proceedings was admissible in evidence and the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have given due weight to it. In Bhurey v. Pir Box 1973 AWR 279 a Division Bench ruled that admissions in mutation proceedings were irrelevant on the question of title. A learned single Judge held that this case requires reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the whole case to a larger Bench.

3. The question of law wh