This is a reference under Sec 24 of the Rajasthan Revenue (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, by the Collector, Alwar in a case relating to mutation proceedings. 2 As the parties did not put in appearance despite notice, I have myself carefully gone through the record of the case. 3. It appears that Chander, Sampat etc. of village Dhamavas, Tehsil Tijara got mutation No. 42 entered by the patwari in respect of fields No. 114, measuring 7 bighas 17 biswas and No. 115, measuring 7 bighas 15 biswas stating that they had sold their biswedari rights over the land in question to Bholu, Hemkaran, Sohan, etc. for Rs. 3500/-. This mutation was duly attested by Shri Rajaram Bhargava, Naib Tehsildar, Tapukra on 1-7-52. On 10-7-52 Hema Karan, one of the vendees, applied for a copy of the mutation proceedings to the Tehsildar Tijara. The Tehsildar by his order dated 16-7-52 ordered the Office kanugo to issue a copy in accordance with rules. There is nothing on record to show whether the office kanugo ever complied with the order and issued a copy. Curiously enough, there is an endorsement duly signed by the Tehsildar of Tijara dated 10-7-52 whereby a reference was made to the S.D.O. Tijara "for orders after seeing the record". In this endorsement the Tehsildar has stated that ordinarily all transfers of immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and above should be registered under the Indian Registration Act, but the Naib Tehsildar of Tapukra had in disregard of this provision sanctioned the mutation for the sale of the land for Rs. 3500/-. The S.D.M., Tijara Shri K.M. Rastogi, forwarded the papers to the Collector, Alwar with the remark that since under Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale of property in question could not be effected except by means of a registered document and as no document had been registered the mutation proceedings were absolutely void and deserve to be set aside. The Collector Alwar agreeing with the recommendation of the S.D.O. has now made a reference to this Board under Sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. 4. Secs. 26 and 29 of the Alwar State Revenue Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Alwar Code) which deal with mutations of entries in the Record of Rights or Annual Record are as reproduced— PROCEDURE FOR MAKING RECORDS 26. 4. Secs. 26 and 29 of the Alwar State Revenue Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Alwar Code) which deal with mutations of entries in the Record of Rights or Annual Record are as reproduced— PROCEDURE FOR MAKING RECORDS 26. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to land owners and occupancy tenants. (1) Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase mortgage, gift or otherwise any right in an estate as a landlord, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. (2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or Otherwise disqualified, his guardian having charge of his property shall make report to the patwari. (3) The patwari shall enter in his register of mutation every report made to him under sub-sec. 1 or sub-sec. 2 and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those subsections and has not been so made. (4) The Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar shall from time to time enquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisition as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which under the foregoing sub-sec. report should have been made in the register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to the entry in the annual records of rights acquired. (5) Such an entry shall be made by insertion in that record of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from that record of any entry in any record previously prepared which by reason has ceased to be correct. 29. Restrictions on variation of entries in record. Entries in record of rights or in annual records except entries made in annual records by patwaris with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interests referred to above shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by— (a) making such entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred. 29. Restrictions on variation of entries in record. Entries in record of rights or in annual records except entries made in annual records by patwaris with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interests referred to above shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by— (a) making such entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred. (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties, and (c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them. 5. According to sec. 26 all kinds of changes which are the result of operation of time, necessity or caprice are to be incorporated in the Record of Rights. Undisputed mutations are to be dealt with in accordance with sec. 29(b). As provided therein a Revenue Officer has no option but to make such entries as are in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred. His duty is to make such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties. In disputed cases he has to ascertain by summary enquiry whether the reported transaction is a fact as laid down in sec. 29(a). The best guide in such cases is the evidence of possession whether the possession has actually passed in accordance with the alleged transfer. Sec. 28(2) of the Alwar Code lays down that only where possession cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Officer, the principle to be applied is possession follows title, i.e. where the attesting officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which party is in possession, it is a healthy rule that the person who is best entitled to it, in the opinion of the Revenue Officer concerned, be put in possession and the mutation be sanctioned in his favour. It is thus clear that the main purpose of mutation proceedings is to record the facts existing on the spot and as such the mutation procedure is mainly to record an accomplished fact and is not designed for the final settlement of the rights of the parties. It is thus clear that the main purpose of mutation proceedings is to record the facts existing on the spot and as such the mutation procedure is mainly to record an accomplished fact and is not designed for the final settlement of the rights of the parties. In A.I.R. 1926 P. C. 100 their Lordships made the following observation— "The judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh at page 482of the record leads their Lordships to think that its judgment is to a great degree based on the mischievous but persistent error that the proceedings for the mutation of names is a judicial proceeding, in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interests of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid" The above principle Was followed in AIR 1927 Allahabad 338 in which it was held that— "mere mutation has not the effect of transferring rights and interest of a person in immovable property in the absence of a registered instrument by which only the proprietary rights in immovable property pass." Thus where a transfer is reported to have been made and brought into account and the vendor and the vendee agree before the Revenue Officer that possession has changed hands there is no other course open to the Revenue Officer but to sanction the mutation. To reject a mutation on the ground that the deed on which it was written was compulsorily registrable and being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence is a false notion. It is beyond the competency of a mutation officer to go into these complicated law points in a summary enquiry of this nature. In the present case it was admitted by both the parties that the possession of property had passed to the vendee. The Revenue Officer was therefore, justified in sanctioning the mutation and there is no reason to set aside his order. The reference is therefore rejected and may be answered accordingly.