Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the mutation order dt. 17.02.1964 by preferring appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The appeal was allowed vide order dt. 04.06.2004. The respondent Kishana Rampreferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 27.07.2007 on the ground that since there is regular suit pending between the parties, therefore, the first appellate Court should not have set aside the mutation order passed long ago. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the mutation entries were absolutely fabricated as it is apparent from the revenue record itself. It is submitted that in any case, the respondent could not have got the entries in his name as he is not successor of Lalaram. It is submitted that even if the Board of Revenue was of the view that no entry should have been changed during the pendency of the regular suit then the entry in the name of Lalaram should have been restored in place of setting aside of the appellate order by which the entry in the name of Kishna Ram was set aside.
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the facts of the case.;