RAM PHER Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the Contest ing respondents and the State Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has assailed the validity and cor rectness of the orders passed by the Con solidation Authorities inter-alia on the grounds that the Consolidation Authorities have committed manifest error in law in not taking into account the effect of the family settlement of the year 1958, the sale deed dated 4. 12. 1961 and the judgment passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. THE Consolidation authorities have also not considered the fact that Bhulai was re corded alongwith Ram Lakhan son of Dukh Chor consequent to the family set tlement. Said Bhulai after obtaining 'bhumidhari Sanad' transferred his entire share in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner came in possession and is still in possession over the property in question and had also acquired bhumidhari rights.

(3.) IT may be added that now, it is a settled proposition of law that mutation entries are only to enable the State, to col lect revenues from the person in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein.