JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18th February, 2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack in R.P. Case No.1088 of 2004 (Annexure-4). 2. The facts, leading to the present application are as follows: Admittedly, the petitioners and opposite parties 3 and 4 are the members of one family. Their common ancestor was Rama Chandra Pattnaik. He had three sons, namely, Dharanidhar, Sridhar and Laxmidhar. The petitioners represent the branch of Laxmidar. Opposite party No.3 represents the branch of Sridhar. Opposite party No.4 represents the branch of Dharanidhar. Rangabati, wife of Sridhar, filed Title Suit No.68 of 1960 for partition of the ancestral properties. The present disputed property was included in Schedule-B of the plaint for partition. The property in question stood recorded in the name of the deity-Shri Paramahansa Dev, the co-sharers of the family being its marfatdars. The property measuring total area of Ac.0.585 decimals appertains to Sabak. Plot No.759 under Sabak Chandana Khata No.555 of Mouza-Sutahat in the town of Cuttack. The petitioners were the defendants in the suit. They contested the suit which was decreed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, Laxmidhar preferred First Appeal No.105 of 1963 before this Court which was disposed of by judgment dated 23.11.1966. The appeal was allowed in part by modifying the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial Court in respect of Schedule-B property. It was observed therein that Schedule-B properties are immovable properties recorded in the name of the deity. Plaintiff's assertion was that the properties were nominal private Debuttor and were partible. The property being the property of the deity, no partition can be effected in respect of the same. But the marfatdari right of the parties can be the subject-matter of partition, according to their mutual convenience and enjoyment without detriment to the title of the deity in respect of the suit properties. The temple and its site are not partible. The houses or rooms which are rented out to tenants and the land permanently leased out to Dr. H.B. Mohanty and Dr. R.K. Nanda are also not partible. In the rents so obtained, the Sebaits have no personal interest and they have no shares towards their emoluments. The income derived from the property is spent towards the seba puja of the deity. As such, the property be excluded from partition. H.B. Mohanty and Dr. R.K. Nanda are also not partible. In the rents so obtained, the Sebaits have no personal interest and they have no shares towards their emoluments. The income derived from the property is spent towards the seba puja of the deity. As such, the property be excluded from partition. The portion of Schedule-B land on which the residential houses of the parties stand is, however, partible. It is the common case of the parties that from the time of their ancestors, they have been living in the houses standing on that portion. Doubtless, the property continues to be absolute debuttor of the deity. But the enjoyment of the land is of the parties without any payment of rent towards occupation. The parties have personal interest in the enjoyment of this portion of the land towards their emoluments in the management of the temple. This Court, while summing up the case, held that a decree for partition is to be passed allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in respect of a portion of Schedule-B land on which the residential houses of the parties stand. Possession of the parties is to be respected as far as practicable. (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, in the First Appeal this Court specifically carved out the parties interest over Schedule-B land and cleared that the title of the deity in respect of Schedule-B property not having been declared, the Parties are entitled to partition their marfatdari rights only according to their convenience. 3. In pursuance of the judgment of the First Appeal, opposite party No.3 initiated a proceeding for making the preliminary decree final. The final decree proceeding was also contested by the parties. Opposite party No.3 challenging the decision of the said Court in the final decree proceeding filed First Appeal No.84 of 1977 before this Court. This Court disposed of the said First appeal by judgment dated 9th May, 1990 modifying the final decree passed by the Court below. In pursuance of the said judgment, opposite party No.3 got his share of A0.022 decimal 5 kadis of land as per the report of the Commissioner in the final decree, out of Sabak Plot No.759 under Sabak Chandana Khata No.555 of Mouza-Sutahat. In pursuance of the said judgment, opposite party No.3 got his share of A0.022 decimal 5 kadis of land as per the report of the Commissioner in the final decree, out of Sabak Plot No.759 under Sabak Chandana Khata No.555 of Mouza-Sutahat. After disposal of the said First Appeal, opposite party No.3 moved an application under Section 15(b) of the Act before the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Cuttack for recording his name exclusively in respect of the aforesaid land as determined in the final decree proceeding in R.P. Case No.1088 of 2004. The present petitioners appeared in the said revision, filed their objection and contended that record-of-right in respect of Sabak Plot No.759 under Sabak Chandana Khata No.555 of Mouza-Sutahat should be maintained in the name of the deity-Shri Paramahansa Dev describing the parties as marfatdars in respect of their respective allotments as determined in the final decree. As such, opposite party No.3 had a right to claim for separate recording of his marfatdari rights in respect of his allotted area of A0.022 decimal and 5 kadis. However, he had no right of any kind to claim for separate and exclusive recording of his name in respect of the property in question. Sabak Plot No.759 under Sabak Chandana Khata No.555 of Mouza-Sutahat corresponds to Hal Settlement Plot No.1324 under Hal Khata No.162 in Hal Mouza-Cuttack town, Unit-2, Oriya Bazar. The petitioners also explained the Commissioner that First Appeal No.84 of 1977 was filed against the judgment passed by the trial Court in the final decree proceeding and the final decree proceeding only carried out the decision arrived at in the preliminary decree. However, the Commissioner allowed the RP case directing the exclusive recording of the land in the name of opposite party No.3 in respect of the said land. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the land in question belongs to the deity-Shri Paramahansa Dev and the preliminary decree was passed which was confirmed in First Appeal No.105 of 1963, the Commissioner should not have directed the exclusive recording of the name of opposite party No.3 In respect of the said land deleting the name of the deity-Shri Paramahansa Dev having marfatdari rights of the parties. 5. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.3, however, submitted that in the final decree proceeding, the share of opposite party No.3 has been carved out and rightly the Commissioner has directed to record the name of opposite party No.3 exclusively in respect of the said property. Therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 6. From the rival submissions of the parties and the findings of this Court in First Appeal No.105 of 1963, it appears that the disputed property belongs to the deity-Shri Paramahansa Dev and the said property is not partible. The portion of Schedule-B land on which the residential house of the parties stands is, however, partible. But the enjoyment of the land of the parties is without any payment of rent towards occupation. The parties have personal interest in the enjoyment of the said portion of the land towards their emoluments in the management of the temple. The said portion of the land is to be partitioned amongst them for mutual convenience without detriment to the title of the deity. Since that was the judgment and decree of the Court, the Commissioner should have respected the same instead of directing to record the name of opposite party No.3 exclusively so far as his share is concerned. 7. Law is well settled that under Clause 47 of the Orissa Mutation Manual, the authorities have to consider orders of competent Court dealing with titles; and documents of transfer of title. Since, in the present case, the Civil Court has already passed a decree, the same should have been respected. The settlement authorities are also not empowered to affect any order passed by the Civil Court as provided under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. Entries in the settlement records do not create or extinguish title and the settlement authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of title. 8. Since the Civil Court has passed the decree, the ROR should have been prepared as per the decree passed by the Civil Court. As the Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Therefore, this Court sets aside the impugned order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.