Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the orders dated 28.04.2010 and 01.06.2010 whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') has dismissed respectively the Revision Petition (No.6274/2007/LR/ Sriganganagar) and the Review Petition (No.2257/2010/LR/Sriganganagar) as filed by the petitioner; and has maintained the order dated 22.05.2007 as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, who had set aside the order dated 04.06.2002 as passed by the Additional Collector (Admn.), Sriganganagar.
(2.) The petitioner had questioned the disputed mutation entries dated 26.03.1999 regarding the land in question, as made by the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 6 as the heirs of original khatedar Shri Ram. The petitioner claimed that the mutation had been effected on the basis of an incorrect and false certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat and she was not given an opportunity of hearing.
(3.) In the order dated 04.06.2002, the learned Additional Collector was of opinion that the Tehsildar ought to have taken a decision after proper enquiry and after extending an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and thus, while setting aside the disputed mutation, remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned with the following, amongst other, observations:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 4. The respondent No.4 herein, Mahavir son of Shri Ram, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 04.06.2002 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner who proceeded to allow the same by the judgment dated 22.05.2007, inter alia, on the consideration that the suit as filed by the present petitioner was pending in the competent Court and that the appeal as filed by her before the Additional Collector was barred by limitation but no order regarding limitation was passed by the learned Additional Collector. The Divisional Commissioner said,- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 22.05.2007, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition that has been considered and dismissed by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order dated 28.04.2010. The Board concurred with the learned Divisional Commissioner and said,- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 6. The petitioner also filed a review petition that has been dismissed by the Board by the order dated 01.06.2010 finding no error apparent on the face of record. 7. Seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the learned counsel submits that for the purpose of mutation, the necessary inquiry was required to be made by the Tehsildar per Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Tehsildar having passed the order without holding such inquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Additional Collector had rightly remanded the matter for decision afresh after proper inquiry. It is submitted that the order as passed by the Additional Collector being in conformity with the requirement of law, called for no interference. 8. In regard to the suit, the learned counsel submitted that the revenue suit that had been filed after filing of the appeal against the mutation cannot be considered decisive of the rights of the petitioner; and even if the said revenue suit had been filed under a wrong advice, the right of the petitioner to challenge the mutation is not taken away. 9. The arguments as advanced do not make out a case for interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Divisional Commissioner and, thereafter, the Board have precisely taken note of the position that the parentage of the petitioner is a matter of dispute and have rightly made the observations that the rights of the petitioner would be determined in the regular suit proceedings. 11. So far as the proceedings of mutation are concerned, the order as passed by the Additional Collector assuming existence of a dispute and the matter calling for inquiry, when not approved by the Divisional Commissioner and then by the Board on relevant consideration, no case for interference by this Court in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out particularly when the orders impugned do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.;