Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the contesting respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 011.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 3987/2000 filed by the appellant. 3. The Tehsildar while making order dated 03.07.1998 (Annexure-7) had stated that requiring Mansingh person in occupation of land under Receiver and who was permitted to cultivate the land on payment of Rs. 100/-per year per bigha, to deposit such amount as per condition imposed by RAA while appointment of receiver will be contrary to order passed by High Court in D.B.C.W. Petition No. 737/1977 dated 25.07.1997. Said order was challenged by the petitioner-appellant. Vide order under appeal, writ petition has been dismissed. 4. Learned Single Judge was of the view that in the wake of order passed in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1160/1994 on 11.04.1997 which since affirmed by the Division Bench, vide order dated 25.07.1997 there was no error in the order of the Tehsildar in making order with the reference to the aforesaid order, for absolving the cultivator of land under Receiver from payment of annual sum as per condition imposed by order appointing receiver. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the order of Tehsildar and the order of the learned Single Judge suffer from the error apparent on the face of record as S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1160/1994 did not relate to orders passed in suit filed by the present appellant against the respondents for declaration of his rights and seeking possession of the land in question. In the said suit, an application for appointing receiver was filed during the pendency of the suit. The application was dismissed on 17.03.1980 by the trial Judge. The Revenue Appellate Authority on appeal vide order dated 13.09.1982 has passed an interim order appointing Receiver which was subsequently affirmed by the order dated 112.1991. The revision against the said order was also dismissed on 15.06.1996. 6. It was pointed out that the appointment of Receiver was made on certain conditions in the pending suit and had nothing to do with the proceedings which were subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1160/1994. The revision against the said order was also dismissed on 15.06.1996. 6. It was pointed out that the appointment of Receiver was made on certain conditions in the pending suit and had nothing to do with the proceedings which were subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1160/1994. The said writ petition had arisen out of a reference made by the Collector for altering mutation which had been made in favour of the respondents in land records in respect of the land in dispute. Those proceedings cannot and has not affected the order passed in the suit which was independently pending. The mutation entries at best could provide evidence of certain facts about possession and matter referred in the entries but are not conclusive proof of such fact. Finality of rights will be as per result of the pending suit and mutation entries will have to accord with such findings. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is well founded and stands fortified by the facts recorded in the earlier order passed by this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1160/1994. The facts emerging from the decision are that while suit filed by the present appellant was pending and the part of land was sold by Appellants No. 6 and 7 Hanuman and Loona Ram, Reference proceedings were initiated by the Additional Collector in 1986, and reference was made to Board on 31.08.1992. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference by directing alteration in the mutation and substituting name of the present appellants as khatedar tenants. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that there is gross delay in making reference and no reason has been assigned for this delay. 8. Learned Single Judge relied on earlier decision of this Court in Anandi Lal vs. State, 1996 DNJ Page 100. 9. Apparently, from the facts in the order dated 11.04.1997 it is clear that suit for declaration and possession was still pending when the writ petition was decided which arose out of a reference proceedings for which commenced during the pendency of the suit between rival claimants to land in question. 10. The appointment of a receiver and conditions imposed for his appointment were not part of proceedings of the reference at all. Nor any order passed in reference would have affected the effective order passed in suit for declaration of title. 10. The appointment of a receiver and conditions imposed for his appointment were not part of proceedings of the reference at all. Nor any order passed in reference would have affected the effective order passed in suit for declaration of title. Therefore, order dated 11.04.1997 or for that matter, the order of Division Bench affirming order dated 11.04.1997 did not relate to proceedings taken in suit filed by the appellants against the respondents. 11. In these circumstances, the Tehsildar who was only acting under the order of the Court, and as an officer of the Court could not have gone beyond the duties assigned to him under the order appointing Receiver and conditions imposed for appointing Receiver continued to operate as they did not stand altered because of the rejection of the reference by setting aside the order of the Board of Revenue in those proceedings. 12. This position is more than clear from the earlier order of this Court and it appears that these facts were not properly brought before the learned Single Judge and like Tehsildar, learned Single Judge fell in error in juxtaposing the proceedings arising out of reference with proceedings of the suit. 13. Accordingly, Judgment under appeal is not sustained nor the order of Tehsildar for not complying with the conditions for appointment of receiver can be sustained. As a matter of fact, Tehsildar had no authority to go beyond the conditions of the order under which he was functioning. If he had any doubt, he ought to have approached the Court which affected it and sought instructions therefrom. 14. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure-7 is quashed. Position relating to Receiver appointment shall remain as per the order which were in force in the proceedings of suit, before passing of the aforesaid order by learned Single Judge.