JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, Chairman - This reference was made by the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated August 17, 1983 arising out of reference No. 138(LR) of 1980-81, Jaunpur and was entrusted to this Division Bench on finding the view expressed by the earlier Judicial Member in Jalil Majid v. Mazarulla and others, 1977 R.D. 371 not acceptable. None of the parties were represented inspite of notices and three learned counsel Sarvasri R.A. Upadhya, B.K. Gupta and R.N. Misra (DGC) were requested to act as Amicus Curiae and they appeared and argued. 2. We have heard the learned counsel as above on the reference and have also perused the record. 3. The recommendation by the learned Additional Commissioner was based on the aforesaid ruling in Jalil Majid v. Mazarulla, that the order of mutation passed by the courts below be set aside as the land in question transferred by the sale-deed dated May 31, 1973 to the applicant in the mutation case was found covered by Abadi, Sahan etc. by a third person. It was held in the said ruling that the mutation should be recorded over the land in dispute except the area occupied by house, Charni and Gharis of the objectors and such area occupied should be demarcated. The learned senior most Member while making the reference expressed his view that since the land in dispute was recorded Bhumidhari in the Khatauni without any entry of Abadi, unless a declaration is made under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, this land cannot be deemed to be Abadi for the purposes of land tenures and the transferor had a right to sale the land as Bhumidhari and the transferee had a right to get it recorded in his name as Bhumidhari. Support was derived from the settled law that in case on agricultural land if some unauthorised occupant is there, still the recorded Bhumidhar can sell the land and inspite of the unauthorised occupant, the transferor will have his Bhumidhari rights, the relationship between the new tenure holder and the unauthorised occupant remaining the same as they were between the earlier Bhumidhar and the unauthorised occupant. 4. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has argued that the procedure laid down in the ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 371 requires apportionment of Abadi area and in native, the mutation proceedings may be stayed and the proceedings under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act may be started in the court of the S.D.O. on reference from the Tahsildar and after conclusion of the proceedings under Section 143 of mutation case may be taken up again. Consideration of the process under Section 143 became necessary in view of the settled law that unless declaration is made under Section 143, the land must continue to be Bhumidhari. It was also considered if the tenure-holder did not make any application under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a dispute arose in a declaratory suit, there was provision under Section 331-A of the Act for framing an issue whether the land in question is or is not used for agricultural purposes and for referring the same to the S.D.O. who would decide the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 and return to the court. There was provision that the S.D.O. may also take suo-moto action. Thus whenever dispute about any land or part thereof being Abadi arose, affecting it to be deemed as Bhumidhari, there was a provision for action under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. During this consideration, it was also argued that the word 'may' occurring in Section 143 in the 4th line before the words 'suo-moto' had force of 'shall' and so when the need was felt during mutation proceedings of such recourse, a reference can be made to the S.D.O. who had to decide the same. 6. The learned counsel Sri B.K. Gupta argued that rule 135 provides elaborate procedure to be followed for declaration under Section 143 while the mutation proceedings were summary in nature, that the presiding officers for mutation proceedings and the case under Section 143 are not the same and so the two proceedings could not be mixed up, that the mutation could not simply be rejected on the ground that someone had put up Abadi on the land that the law laid down in the ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 371 was not the correct law. He further cited ruling in Mewa and others v. Baldeo, 1966 R.D. 392, Alauddin and Makki v. Majid Khan, 1971 R.D. 160 and Krishnapal Singh and others v. Akal Chand and others, 1981 R.D. 34 Notes (44) : 1981 A.I.R. 239 in support. In the ruling in Mewa v. Baldeo, it was held that in a suit for possession and demolition, if a trespasser had made constructions without right upon the land of another person, the revenue court had power to give relief. Demolition was held to be within the jurisdiction of the revenue court by way of ancillary relief while the main relief was recovery of possession. In Alauddin v. Majid Khan, it was held that till such a Bhumidahr does not get the declaration under Section 143, he continues to be governed by the provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act irrespective of the fact as to whether he used his land for the purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or not. In Krishnapal Singh v. Akalchand, it was held that in a suit of partition where the land is used for agricultural purposes then it is revenue court jurisdiction and if the finding is that the land is not used for agricultural purposes but as building site etc. and there is a declaration under Section 143 to this effect, civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. The learned counsel Sri R.A. Upadhya has argued that Section 34 of the U.P.L.R. Act applies where the land is used for agricultural purposes and since in this case there was a showing before the learned Tahsildar that the constructions existed, the Tehsildar could not overlook and should have stayed the mutation and referred the matter to the S.D.O. under Section 143. He further referred some judgment by the Board at Lucknow in a case of one Rama Nand Tewari, supporting the view but the judgment was not made available. 8. From the rulings cited which are all by the Hon'ble High Court, the settled view is clear that a Bhumidhari must continue to be deemed as Bhumidhari for the purposes of jurisdiction of the revenue court until a declaration is made under Section 143 and the land in question goes out of the definition in Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is also settled that a ruling even by a Single Judge of the High Court prevails over the view held by a Bench of the ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 371 must be held as incorrect law. 9. There is another aspect that while the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, the proceedings under Section 143 which affect the nature of rights must rank with regular suits for declaration, partition, involving determination of title. It is obvious that a summary proceeding is meant for looking the records upto date by correction, mutation etc. It is not meant to decide the title. It is the settled law that in a suit for title any decision in a mutation or correction of papers case is not binding. It follows that in a mutation case consideration of title should be introduced. Therefore, any declaration under Section 143 while deciding the mutation case is uncalled for and need not be introduced. It is also unnecessary that the mutation proceedings be delayed merely because some objection about the jurisdiction based on determination of title is raised. Since no title can be decided, it is outside the scope of the mutation court to look into such objection, no related to the prima facie title of the transferee and transferor. 10. We quite agree with the view of our learned predecessor expressed in the referring order dated Sept. 17, 1983 that after the sale the transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor subject to prima facie title and prima facie validity of the sale-deed. Other questions relating to dispute of title and jurisdiction of the revenue or civil court must be settled in other competent court. 11. Accordingly, we hold that the view expressed in the ruling Jalil Majid v. Mazarulla (supra) is not good law and it is further held that until there is a finding by a competent court that the land in question is not land as defined under Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and until there is a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Bhumidhari tenure continues to be Bhumidhari, the jurisdiction of the revenue court continues and the mutation in favour of the transferee cannot be rejected on the ground that the land has been covered in part or full by Abadi, Sahan, Charni, etc.