Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. 18.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer accepting a revision petition preferred by respondent Shri Ghanshyam giving challenge to validity, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner in Revenue Appeal No. 37/2000 as affirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by order dt.19.09.2001.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the Tehsildar made mutation in favour of respondent Shri Ghanshyam S/o Shri Nathmal on basis of a Will said to be executed by his father Shri Nathmal. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (North), Bikaner and that came to be accepted by the order dt. 16.05.2001with a finding that the Tehsildar (Revenue), Bikaner erred while enteringmutation in favour of respondent Shri Ghanshyam without hearing other legal representatives of Shri Nathmal. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, accordingly, remanded the matter to Tehsildar (Revenue), Bikaner to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the legal representatives of Shri Nathmal. An appeal preferred by the respondent Shri Ghanshyam before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikanerunder Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act, 1986 also stood rejected by the order dt. 19.09.2001, however, the Board of Revenue accepted the revision petition preferred giving challenge to the order aforesaid on the count that the proceedings for mutation is of a summary nature, thus, there was no need to hear other legal representatives of Shri Nathmal and also for the reason that entries of mutation does not vest title with any body. While assailing validity of the order dt. 18.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue, contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to interfere with the concurrent finding given by the Sub Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner as well as by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. It is also asserted that though the mutation does not vest any title of the property in persons, however, it certainly creates a civil right with regard to cultivation of the land with a person in whose favour the mutation is entered.
(3.) IN reply to the writ petition, stand of the respondent is that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue as there is no error touching the jurisdiction.;