JUDGMENT Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 9. 2. The dispute involved in the present writ petition relates to twenty five plots of khata no. 259 having a total area of 12-7-0, hereinafter referred to as the disputed plots. In the basic year name of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 was recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and late Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 filed an objection under Section 9A(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the C.H.) Act, before the Consolidation Officer, Allahabad claiming co-tenancy rights in the disputed plots along with the recorded tenure holder. Their claim was founded upon the allegations that parties descended from common ancestors Dev Saran, Ram Saran and Ram Nandan, sons of Vidhata. Ram Saran died issuless. The disputed plots were acquired by Dev Saran and Ram Nandan jointly. Ram Nandan and Ram Sundar, son of Dev Saran were recorded as co-tenants of the disputed plots in the record of rights. On the death of Ran Nandan, the names of his sons petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and Bhola Nath (since deceased) came to be recorded in his place as co-tenants of the disputed plots along with Ram Sundar on the basis of succession in 1354 fasli and continued as such in khatauni of 1360 and 1362 fasli but later their names were illegally expunged from the record of rights although they had remained in continuous possession thereof along with other co-tenants till the date of filing of their objections before the Consolidation Officer. Respondents nos. 7 to 9 had also filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming co-tenancy right in the disputed plots along with petitioners and Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6. 3. Their claims were contested by Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that the disputed plots were the sir of its erstwhile zamindar who had settled the same in favour of Ram Sundar who had thereafter become sole sirdar/tenant thereof. The names of one Ganesh, petitioner nos. 3 to 6. 3. Their claims were contested by Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 on the ground that the disputed plots were the sir of its erstwhile zamindar who had settled the same in favour of Ram Sundar who had thereafter become sole sirdar/tenant thereof. The names of one Ganesh, petitioner nos. 1, 2 and Bhola Nath, sons of Ram Nandan were wrongly recorded in the khasra of 1362 fasli which were rightly expunged by the Tehsildar by his order dated 19.10.1955 passed by him in proceedings under sections 33 of U.P. L.R. Act on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.1955 (annexure-CA3) filed by late Bhola Nath in the aforesaid proceeding, in which Bhola Nath had admitted that neither he nor his brothers, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had any concern with the disputed plots and Ram Sundar was the sole tenant thereof and after passing of the order dated 19.10.1955 neither the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and late Bhola Nath nor Ram Nandan, father of respondent nos. 7 to 9 could claim any co-tenancy rights in the disputed plots. The Consolidation Officer, Allahabad by his order dated 23.8.1971 allowed the petitioners' objection holding that they had half share in the disputed plots. However, the objection of the respondent nos. 7 to 9 was dismissed by him by the same order (annexure-1). 4. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 of sole tenancy in respect of the disputed plots founded on the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 33 of the U.P. L.R. Act based on the compromise dated 31.8.1955 on the ground that the admission made by late Bhola Nath in mutation proceeding that he and petitioner nos. 3 to 6 of sole tenancy in respect of the disputed plots founded on the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 33 of the U.P. L.R. Act based on the compromise dated 31.8.1955 on the ground that the admission made by late Bhola Nath in mutation proceeding that he and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had no interest in the disputed plots and Ram Sundar alone was entitled to be recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots and that their names were wrongly recorded was in substance transfer of their sirdari rights in favour of co-sirdar Ram Sundar which was void under Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and their rights in the disputed plot did not stood extinguished or transferred in favour of Ram Sundar by virtue of the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar on the basis of compromise dated 31.8.1955 which itself was invalid as there is no provision in the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act permitting transfer by one co-sirdar of his sirdari rights in favour of another co-sirdar. 5. The Consolidation Officer while coming to the aforesaid conclusion had taken note of the the entries existing in khatauni of 1347 fasli, in which the disputed plots were recorded in the names of Ram Nandan son of Vidhata Ram, Ram Sundar son of Dev Saran and khataunis of 1354, 1360 and 1362 fasli, in which petitioner nos. 1, 2 and late Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 and Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 were recorded as sirdars of the disputed plots showing the period of their cultivatory possession as twelve years. 6. The matter was taken up to the respondent no. 2 by Radhey Shyam, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 and respondent nos. 7 to 9 in Appeal nos. 1523 and 1560. The respondent no. 2 rejected appeal no. 1530 preferred by the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 while appeal preferred by Ram Sundar was allowed by respondent no. The matter was taken up to the respondent no. 2 by Radhey Shyam, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 and respondent nos. 7 to 9 in Appeal nos. 1523 and 1560. The respondent no. 2 rejected appeal no. 1530 preferred by the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 while appeal preferred by Ram Sundar was allowed by respondent no. 2 by his order dated 25.9.1971 holding that Ram Sundar in his application filed under section 33 of the U.P. L.R. Act had stated that the names of Ganesh as tenant and of Bhola Nath, Shambhu Nath and Radhey Shyam in column V of khasra of 1363 fasli were wrongly recorded as they had never been in cultivatory possession over the disputed plots and since the aforesaid fact was admitted by them before the Tehsildar, it was not a case of transfer of sirdari rights by one co-sirdar in favour of another sirdar as held by the Consolidation Officer but was a case where the entries existing in favour of Shambhu Nath, Radhey Shyam and Bhola Nath were admitted by them to have been wrongly made and Bhola Nath, Shambhu Nath and Radhey Shyam were bound by their admission made before the Tehsildar and hence they were debarred from claiming any co-tenancy rights in the disputed plot (annexure-2). The revision no. 40/110/22/169 which was preferred by the petitioner before respondent no. 1 was allowed by him by an ex-parte order dated 14.12.1972 which was challenged by Ram Sundar before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 2965 of 1970 and allowed by this Court by order dated 7.4.1974 (annexure-4), by which this Court after setting aside the order dated 14.12.1972 had remitted the matter back to the respondent no. 1 for deciding the petitioner's revision afresh in accordance with law. After remand respondent no. 1 dismissed the petitioner's revision by order dated 6.10.1979 (annexure-5). A perusal of the order passed by respondent no. 1 shows that he not only subscribed to the view of respondent no. 1 for deciding the petitioner's revision afresh in accordance with law. After remand respondent no. 1 dismissed the petitioner's revision by order dated 6.10.1979 (annexure-5). A perusal of the order passed by respondent no. 1 shows that he not only subscribed to the view of respondent no. 2 but also went a step ahead in observing in his order that although Section 40A of the U.P. L.R. Act provides that no order passed under Section 33, section 35, section 39, section 40, section 41 or section 54 shall not bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding but since the petitioners had allowed entry made in favour of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 pursuant to the order dated 19.10.1955 on the basis of which their names were expunged to stand for a long time and had not challenged the same by filing a regular suit till the commencement of Consolidation proceedings it shall be deemed that Ram Sundar had perfected his title over the disputed plots by adverse possession although no such case was ever pleaded by Ram Sundar. 7. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the orders dated 6.10.1979 (anneuxre-5) and 25.9.1971 (annexure-2) passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 1 have committed a patent error of law in holding that the petitioners and late Bhola Nath were bound by the admission made by Bhola Nath in mutation proceedings on his and on their behalf although the said admission in law amounted to transfer of their co-sirdari rights in the disputed plots in favour of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 which was void under Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 9. He next submitted that the admission or consent given in mutation proceeding has no relevance in regular proceedings and the view taken to the contrary by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is per-se illegal and manifestly erroneous. The Consolidation Officer had correctly decided the dispute between the parties holding that the petitioners had half share in the disputed plots, the respondent no. 1 and 2 is per-se illegal and manifestly erroneous. The Consolidation Officer had correctly decided the dispute between the parties holding that the petitioners had half share in the disputed plots, the respondent no. 2 was not at all legally justified in setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer upon a totally erroneous premise and the respondent no. 1 also fell into same error by rejecting the petitioners' revision preferred by them before him against the order of the respondent no. 2. 10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Resham Devi vs. Board of Revenue reported in (2009) 108 RD 243 , Bhurey vs. Pir Bux reported in (1974) R.D. (Supp.) 259 11. Per contra, Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 9 submitted that admission made in mutation proceeding is binding on the party making it and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not commit any error of law or illegality in relying upon the admission made by late. Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 in mutation proceedings on his behalf and also on behalf of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 that their names were wrongly recorded in the khasra of 1362 fasli and the order passed by the Tehsildar on 19.10.1955 by relying upon the aforesaid admission by which their names were expunged, while rejecting their claims of co-tenancy rights in the plots in dispute. 12. He next submitted that an admission of a party made either in pleadings or orally is the best piece of evidence and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not commit any error or illegality in relying upon the admission made by lat Bhola Nath in mutation proceeding. 13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 9 has placed reliance on Devi Singh vs. Board of Revenue U.P. reported in All CJ 1991, 986, Vishwanath Prasad vs. Dwarika Prasad reported in AIR 1974 SC 117 , Bharat Singh vs. Mst. Bhagirathi reported in AIR 1966 SC 405 , United India insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudharyreported in (2005) 5 SCC 784 vs. Avtar Singh and others vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (2006)12 SCC 552 , Ahmedsaheb (DEAD) by Lrs. Vs. Sayed Ismail (2012) 8 SCC 516 . 14. Bhagirathi reported in AIR 1966 SC 405 , United India insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Samir Chandra Chaudharyreported in (2005) 5 SCC 784 vs. Avtar Singh and others vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (2006)12 SCC 552 , Ahmedsaheb (DEAD) by Lrs. Vs. Sayed Ismail (2012) 8 SCC 516 . 14. I have very carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, pleadings of the parties and the law reports cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the answering respondent nos. 3 to 7 in support of their respective submissions. 15. The short question which arises for consideration in this case is that whether an admission made by Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 in the compromise filed by him in the aforesaid proceeding on 31.8.1955 (annexure CA-3) in mutation proceeding under Section 33 of the U.P. L.R. Act that the entries existing in favour of Bhola Nath and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in column 5 of khasra of 1362 fasli were wrongly made and they had no concern with the disputed plots which were under exclusive cultivatory possession of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 which was in substance transfer of their share in the disputed plots (sir) in favour of another co-sharer (co-sirdar) and hence was void under Section 166 of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was binding on Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 and petitioner nos. 2 and 1 as held by respondent nos. 2 and 1 in the impugned order. 16. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act reads as under : "166. Transfer made in contravention of this Chapter to be void.- Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be void. 17. There is no dispute about the legal position that a sirdar has no right to transfer his sirdari rights either in favour of a co-sirdar or a third person. 18. Transfer made in contravention of this Chapter to be void.- Every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of this Act shall be void. 17. There is no dispute about the legal position that a sirdar has no right to transfer his sirdari rights either in favour of a co-sirdar or a third person. 18. A bare reading of Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act makes it clear that a transfer of sirdari rights made by one co-sirdar in favour of another co-sirdar in contravention of provisions of Chapter VIII of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is void. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhurey (supra) had an occasion to examine the question of relevancy of admission or consent made in mutation proceeding which would be in substance a transfer of sirdari rights. In paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench held as hereunder : "10. It was urged that the admission of Chuttan in the application for compromise deceree would bind him. The proceedings in the civil court in a suit which was not entertainable are all void. In the plaint no tangible source of title was pleaded. The so-called admission by Ghuttan would be in substance a transfer of his sirdari rights to the plaintiff. Such transfers are prohibited and made void by Section 166, Zamindari Abolition Act. The admission being in violation of a mandatory statutory provision, was unenforceable. 11. Reliance was also placed upon an admission of the predecessors of the respondents in the mutation proceedings. It is well established that any consent or admission made in mutation proceedings has no relevance in regular title proceedings. Consequently, the alleged admission of ilahi Baksh or Ali Baksh is not admissible in the present title proceedings. The Deputy Director was in error in spelling out an exclusive title in Bhurey on the basis of these admissions. 20. Same view was taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Resham Devi (supra). Consequently, the alleged admission of ilahi Baksh or Ali Baksh is not admissible in the present title proceedings. The Deputy Director was in error in spelling out an exclusive title in Bhurey on the basis of these admissions. 20. Same view was taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Resham Devi (supra). Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment which is relevant to our purpose which is reproduced herein below: - "9.The learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to his last submission that the statement given in the mutation proceedings could not have been relied upon in regular declaratory suit, has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhurey vs. Peer Bux and others, reported in 1974 Revenue Decisions (Suppl.) 259. This Court in paragraph 11 of the report, has clearly held that any admission or consent given in mutation proceedings, would not have any relevance in regular title proceedings. Para 11 of the said report is extracted herein below: " 21. What follows from the reading of the aforesaid judgments is that an admission made or consent given in mutation proceeding would not have any relevance in regular title proceeding and more so if the substance of such admission by a sirdar is a transfer of his sirdari rights to his co-sirdar which is prohibited and made void by Section 166 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Such an admission being in violation of mandatory statutory provision is unenforcible. 22. I now proceed to examine the decisions which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents. 23. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) the consumer forum had permitted the respondent-complainant to resile his admission without adequate rebuttal of the admission and the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon. The Apex Court has further held in the same judgment that evidentially admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppal and shift the burden of proof placing it on the person making the admission or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. 24. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. 24. In the second case relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents Avtar Singh (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering Section 58, 17 & 31 of the evidence Act had held that admission forms the best evidence and things admitted need not be proved, the admission does not create any title, nature of land can form subject-matter of admission. 25. The Apex Court in the case of Ahmedsaheb (supra) held that admission made either in pleadings or orally is the best evidence and needs no further corroboration. 26. In Bharat Singh v. Smt. Bhagirathi, (supra), it was held that an admission to be binding against the person making it must be clear. Such admissions are substantial evidence admissible in evidence irrespective of the fact whether the party making them was examined or not or in case the parties are examined whether he was confronted with that statement or not. 27. In Vishwanath Prasad v. Dwarika Prasad (supra) The Apex Court held that there was a distinction between the party who is the author of a prior statement and a witness who is examined and is sought to be discredited by use of his prior statement. In the former case an admission by a party is substantive evidence if it fulfills the requirements of Section 21; in the latter case a prior statement is used to discredit the credibility of the witness and does not become substantive evidence. In the former there is no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is evidence pro prio vigore. 28. None of the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioners have dealt with the issue whether an admission made in mutation proceeding which has an effect of transferring sirdari right in favour of another co-sirdar or which violates a mandatory statutory provision is legally enforcible against the party making such admission in view of Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and hence the same can not be treated as authoritative pronouncements on the issue involved in this writ petition. 29. In the case of Devi Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 29. In the case of Devi Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 6 although a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that an admission made in mutation proceeding is binding but since the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhurey (supra) taking a contrary view was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge who had decided the case of Devi Singh (supra) nor the effect of Section 166 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was considered in the said case, in my opinion the same can not be said to have laid down good law. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhurey (supra) still holds the field. 30. For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the settled law on the issue, I am of the view that the respondent no. 2 committed a patent error of law in setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.8.1971 (annexure-1) which was passed by him after a thorough marshaling of the facts of the case and proper appreciation of the relevant provisions of law and the evidence on record upon an erroneous premise that the admission made by late Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 on his behalf as well as on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1and 2 in the compromise dated 31.8.1955 filed by him before the Tehsildar that neither he nor the other recorded owners namely, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had any right in the disputed plots and that their names were wrongly recorded, was binding upon the petitioners and estopped them from claiming co-tenancy rights in the disputed plots in proceeding under Section 9A(i) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 31. The failure of respondent no. 1 to rectify the mistake committed by the respondent no. 2 has vitiated the order of respondent no. 1 also. Further observation made by the respondent no. 1 in his order that since the petitioners had failed to challenge the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar on the basis of which the name of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 was recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots and the names of the petitioner nos. Further observation made by the respondent no. 1 in his order that since the petitioners had failed to challenge the order dated 19.10.1955 passed by the Tehsildar on the basis of which the name of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 was recorded as sole tenant of the disputed plots and the names of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and their father, Bhola Nath, father of petitioner nos. 3 to 6 were expunged by filing a regular civil suit, Ram Sundar had perfected his title over the disputed land by adverse possession and they were debarred from challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order and the entry made in favour of Ram Sundar, father of respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the revenue record pursuant thereto by filing objection under Section 9A(i) of the C.H. Act was wholly unwarranted as plea of adverse possession was not taken by late Ram Sundar at any stage. The order of respondent no. 1 is also thus liable to be quashed. 32. The writ petition accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. 33. The impugned orders dated 6.10.1979 (annexure-5) and 25.09.1971 (annexure-2) are hereby quashed. The order dated 23.8.1971 (annexure-1) passed by the Consolidatin Officer, Allahabad (annexure-1) is restored. There shall however be no order as to costs.