JUDGMENT : 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 which has caused the reference does not really arise in this case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the compromise was not binding on Phool Chand because he was at that time a minor and there was no evidence that Bharosey had been appointed his guardian. In the next place, the Deputy Director of Consolidation emphasized that even though in the compromise Phool Chand's guardian had admitted that Phool Chand was not in possession yet his name continued to be recorded in the revenue papers which shows that Phool Chand in fact continued to remain in possession. In the alternative, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that admissions in mutation proceedings ate valueless qua title. 4. In fact the Deputy Director of Consolidation had considered the effect of the admission in mutation proceedings that Phool Chand was not in possession and he has refused to give any due weight to that admission, and found that nonetheless his name continued to be recorded as Bhumidhar which shows that he was also in possession. The admission on the question of possession was duly taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. The admission on the question of possession was duly taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. In Bhurey v. Peer Bux, (supra) this Court has held that consent or admission made in mutation proceedings has no relevance in regular title proceedings. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4062 of 1971-Algoo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1979 AWC 299 , we have explained that these observations regarding admission or consent are not about title but if in a particular case an admission or consent is in relation to possession at the time of the compromise, that admission or consent is admissible even in title proceedings. When a regular court is called upon to decide or adjudicate title of the parties, it can take into consideration the fact that in mutation proceedings one party had admitted or consented in respect of their possession. In this view, we do not think that the law laid down in Bhurey v. Peer Bux, (supra) requires reconsideration. 6. In Abbas Khan and Another Vs. Muhammad Ali, Sulaiman, C.J. held that proceedings for the mutation of names are not 'judicial proceedings' in which the title to, and proprietary rights in, immovable property are determined. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest 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. For this reason, admissions made or given in such proceedings are of no relevance or consequence on question of title. 7. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AIR 1976 SC 807 and of this Court in Shyam Sunder and Others Vs. Siya Ram and Another, AIR 1973 All 382 and Ramgopal Vs. Tulshi Ram and Another and also of a Full Bench in Ram Gati Chaube Vs. Ran Adhar Chaube, AIR 1961 All 537 are all distinguishable. In each and every one of these cases the question was whether a family settlement required registration and it was held that since a family settlement is a recognition of antecedent title of the parties, it does not require registration. Ran Adhar Chaube, AIR 1961 All 537 are all distinguishable. In each and every one of these cases the question was whether a family settlement required registration and it was held that since a family settlement is a recognition of antecedent title of the parties, it does not require registration. In none of those cases it was considered whether an admission contained in a compromise rendered during the course of mutation proceedings is admissible in subsequent proceedings. 8. In our opinion, the finding of fact that the Plaintiff was in joint possession does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 9. The other question raised in the writ petition was whether Phool Chand was entitled to half share in the two plots. 10. The Consolidation Officer held that none of the parties have given pedigree nor adduced evidence regarding the shares. Three persons' names were recorded as co-bhumidhars. It appears that previously Phool Chand son of Naresh was recorded along with Bharosey and Parag, who were the sons of Jokhan. It was argued that Jokhan and Naresh were brothers and so had an equal share. So Phool Chand will inherit his father's half share. But now, Phool Chand is co-tenant with strangers. In the absence of any evidence all the three co-sharers will have an equal share i.e. 1/3rd share each. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is modified and it is declared that Phool Chand has 1/3rd share in the plots in dispute. Parties shall bear their own costs.