This is an application in revision under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 against an appellate order of Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 26.11.53 by which the order of the Collector, Alwar, dated 21.2.1953, dismissing the appeal of the applicant against the order of Tehsildar Behror in a case of mutation of Muafi land was upheld. 2. I have heard the counsel for the applicant ex-parte as the opposite party was absent despite notice and have also gone through the record of the case. The main contention of the applicant is that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to sanction the mutation and to remove the name of the applicant from the Revenue Record. This has obviously no force. A reference to item 13 Group E of the first schedule to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act shows that the Tehsildars are authorised to sanction mutation on death or abandonment, surrender or transfer of holding. In this case it was alleged that the applicant Goswami Harigopal who was managing the land in dispute which was dedicated to the temple of Shri Gopalji Maharaj, had been removed and that the management had been given to Mahant Santoknath in whole name the sanction of mutation was solicited. This change had already taken place as far back as 6.6.1950 and the non-applicant Santoknath was managing the land since then. Mutations are affected in order to bring the revenue record in accordance with the actual condition the spot. As the transfer of management from the appellant to the respondent was an accomplished fact which had taken place as far back as June, 1950, the Revenue Officers had no option but to sanction the mutation in question. The contention of the applicant has, therefore, no force. The revision is hereby rejected.