P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications raise similar questions of law and fact and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE property involved in the present case admittedly belonged to Lingaraj Temple. Bhubaneswar. In the year 1937, the then Trust board decided to lease out the disputed property in favour of one Dr. Ramendu Ray after receiving Salami of Rs. 250a. Thereafter, though a formal lease was not executed, ramendu Ray continued to remain in possession of the disputed property on payment of rent. After demise of Dr. Ramendu Ray, his widow Bibhabati continued to remain in possession. In the year 1970. an application was filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") against Bibhabati challenging the lease as illegal and seeking for recovery of possession under Section 68 of the Act. The application was registered as O. A. No. 66 of 1970. Though the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments allowed the application for recovery of possession, the Commissioner of Endowments in Revision Case No. 6 of 1971 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner by judgment dated 7. 5. 1971. Subsequently, the disputed land was sold by Bibhabati to the present petitioners by sale deeds dated 16. 6. 1973 and some constructions have been made by the petitioners. It appears that after the vesting of all trust estates, the disputed property was settled with Lord Lingaraj and being armed with such settlement, fresh application under Section 25 of the Act was initiated. The Commissioner of endowments allowed the application and directed eviction of the petitioners. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed OJC No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed by judgment dated 26th August, 1991. The contesting opposite party carried the matter to the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 1995. The supreme Court while dismissing the appeal passed the following order:"in the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed OJC No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed by judgment dated 26th August, 1991. The contesting opposite party carried the matter to the Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 1995. The supreme Court while dismissing the appeal passed the following order:"in the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Even though it is not necessary to make any observation as the law itself is clear, however, in order ot obviate any technical defect, the appellant is permitted to approach the Civil Court which shall decide the dispute between the parties unhindered by any observation made in this order or the order passed, by the Commissioner in earlier proceedings under Section 68 of the Act or the proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 of the Abolition Act. . . . . . . . . . . "there is no dispute that thereafter the matter is now pending before the Civil Judge (Senior division ). Bhubaneswar, in Title Suit No. 235 of 1995. While the matter stands thus, it appears that in the meantime, the disputed property has been recorded in the name of present opposite party No. 1 with note of possession in favour of the present petitioners. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the recording of the land in the name of opposite party No. 1 filed revision Petition Nos. 2098 of 1989 and 2100 of 1989. While dismissing their revision, the commissioner of Consolidation and Settlement had directed for deletion of the note of pos-session. Hence, the two writ applications. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the earlier history of litigations, the property could not have been recorded in the name of opposite party No. 1 and at any rate, the petitioners being admit-tedly in possession, the direction regarding de-letion of note of possession was unjustified. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, supported the decision of the Settlement commissioner. ( 4 ) IN normal course the authorities while preparing the Record-of-Rights should have followed the decision of the High Court in the writ application and, as such, preparation of record-of-Rights in the name of the opposite party cannot be sustained. Law is well-settled that Settlement records neither create title nor extinguish title. ( 4 ) IN normal course the authorities while preparing the Record-of-Rights should have followed the decision of the High Court in the writ application and, as such, preparation of record-of-Rights in the name of the opposite party cannot be sustained. Law is well-settled that Settlement records neither create title nor extinguish title. Admittedly, the dispute is now pending before the Trial Court in a suit. It is obvious that the rights of the parties are to be decided in accordance with law and the entries made in the Record-of-Rights would be of no consequence. On the other hand, if any observation is made, it may prejudice the disposal of the suit. Having regard to all these aspects we dispose of the writ applications with the observation that the entries made in the record-of-Rights would be of no consequence and the matter has to be decided in the suit in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence on record. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the contentions raised in the suit. Needless to point out that the suit should be disposed of expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, ACJ-I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.