Satish Chandra CJ and Yashoda Nandan, JJ.

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 tit