This is a reference from Collector Udaipur under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 dated 12-8 1964 stating the following facts. That Gokalsingh was the sub-grantee of the Jagirdar of Sanwad holding measuring 28 bighas and 10 biswas of land in his khudkasht. This land was wrongly transferred by way of succession to the adopted son Chainsingh by the Tehsildar vide his order passed in mutation No. 52 of village Sanwad Tehsil Mawli, District Udaipur, dated 15.2.1955 transferring the entire holding in the name of the adopted son by way of succession. The Collector Udaipur has urged that this transfer was illegal by way of succession in the life time of Gokalsingh. This reference is supported by the Government Advocate and Shri Shobalal Dashora Advocate who appeared on behalf of Gokalsingh and it is opposed by Jaswantlal Advocate who represents Chainsingh. The bare perusal of the mutation order would reveal that the entire sub-grant of Gokalsingh was purported to have been transferred by way of succession to the adopted son Chainsingh by the Tehsildar Mawli and the order on the face of it seems absurd. No succession can take place in the life time of the landholder. The counsel for Chainsinghs only contention was that there was no intention to transfer the proprietory rights of this sub-grant by Gokalsingh to Chainsingh ; but his intention was only to create tenancy right in favour of Chainsingh and for this purpose the original record may be sent for and perused. The impugned order is clear on the point and it does not mention the creation of a tenancy right by Gokalsingh in favour of Chainsingh whom Gokalsingh intended to treat as the adopted son. On the contrary the order is manifestly clear that Gokalsingh wanted to retire and in his life time transferred the proprietory rights to his adopted son Chainsingh by way of succession. No succession can possibly take place in the life time of the landholder. For the creation of tenancy right from the landholder to any other person does not require an order of mutation. It is sufficient that the lease-deed is attested by the parties in the presence of the competent authority and possession handed over and rent determined. In this case nothing of the sort happened. The order on the face of it is illegal and absurd and deserves to be quashed. It is sufficient that the lease-deed is attested by the parties in the presence of the competent authority and possession handed over and rent determined. In this case nothing of the sort happened. The order on the face of it is illegal and absurd and deserves to be quashed. I, therefore, direct the Collector, Udaipur, in reply to his reference that the sanction is accorded for cancelling the illegal mutation order passed by the Tehsildar. Necessary changes may be made in the record of right.