JUDGMENT 1. - Onkar and Hira - the two brothers - were the Khatedars of 36 Bighas 14 Biswas of land situated in village Uthel Tehsil Badi Sadri district Chittorgarh. After their death, petitioner Rama - the sole survival of Onkar - became the Khatedar of 18 Bighas 7 Biswas of land while Mst. Rami Widow of 1-lira became the Khatedar of 18 Bighas 7 Biswas of the land which was in the Khatedari of her deceased husband I lira. Mst. Rami, by an unregistered sale-deed dated 24.2.64, sold this 18 Bighas 7 Bishas of land to petitioner Rama for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- and as per the case of the petitioner, the possession was handed over to him. The petitioner applied for mutation to be made in his name with respect to this land which he purchased from Mst. Rami and the Gram Panchayat, vide its order dated 13.7.76, ordered for mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner. Hem Raj, Mst. Lachhi, Mst. Rami and Mst. Deu preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, challenging the order dated 13.7.76, passed by the Gram Panchayat, ordering for the entry of the mutation made in the name of the petitioner. The appeal, filed by Hem Raj and others, was dismissed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Nirnbaheda, by its order dated 6.1.78. Hem Raj and others, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, and the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dated 4.1.80, allowed the appeal filed by Hem Raj and others and set aside the order dated 13.7.76 passed by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the order dated 4.1.80, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 9.9.86. It is against this judgment, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 9.9.86. It is against this judgment, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of mutation, it is only the possession which has to be-look-into and the unregistered sale-deed can be read in the evidence for colateral purposes to show the possession and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the mutation cannot be entered on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue and has submitted that no mutation can be entered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Sections 133 to 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act deal with the entries to be made in the Revenue Records on the basis of the possession by succession, transfer or otherwise, of any property or other right or interest in any land or the profit thereof. Section 133 f the Act provides that the party interested in the land, who obtains possession, shall bring to the knowledge of the village Patwari and report it to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which the land is situated, either directly or through the village Patwari or Land Record Officer, within three months from the date on which he obtained such possession. Section 134 of the Act provides a fine for neglect in reporting the matter as required under Section 133 of the, Act. Section 135 of the Act provides the procedure to be followed for recording of the entries in the Annual Register. This entry in the revenue record is called 'mutation'. 'Mutation' simply means the alteration of the entry with the object of making it a representative fact with record to the present right and liabilities of the persons. It is not a final settlement of the rights and the final adjudication can be made only in the regular suits. This entry in the revenue record is called 'mutation'. 'Mutation' simply means the alteration of the entry with the object of making it a representative fact with record to the present right and liabilities of the persons. It is not a final settlement of the rights and the final adjudication can be made only in the regular suits. The enquiry made under this Section is more or less in the nature of fiscal enquiry made in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining that who is the person liable to pay the land revenue with respect to the land in question. It is true that the mutation has to be entered in the revenue record on the basis of the possession, but the possession should be of such a nature which is recognised and protected under the law. The possession is a de facto claim to the property and it is the external form to exert right. It means a control over the land for owner's use and enjoyment with intend to have and exercise such control and it is only the lawful possession that can be recognised under the Act for making entry in the revenue record. The mutation can be entered in the revenue record only on the basis of the possession which is recognised and protected under the law and not otherwise. As the unregistered sale-deed cannot be read in evidence, therefore, it does not confer any legal right in favour of the petitioner. No mutation can, therefore, be made in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed. Rule 119 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Rules, also, provides that an entry can be made in the Mutation Registered on the basis of the transfer if it has been made by a registered document. As the transfer of the land, in the present case, has been made by an unregistered sale-deed, therefore, no mutation could have been entered in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed and, as such, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, was justified in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 5. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhu Dayal and Ors. 5. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Prabhu Dayal and Ors. v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors., 1988 (1) RLR 971 as under : "Coming to the provisions of the Land Revenue Rules, we may state that a bare reading of rule 119 of the Land Revenue Rules will show that an entry can only be inserted in mutation register (P-21), if the transfer has been made by the registered document. That Rule provides that mutation register (P-21) is prescribed for entry of every acquisition of Khatedari right over the land by allotment, transfer or order of any competent authority. It also includes insertion of entry which effects correction in Jamabandi (Khatauni) by an order of competent Court, sale of land by registered document, surrender of Khatedari rights to the Government, succession etc. It will, therefore, be clear that entry in the register can also be made and has to be made in case the sale of land is by registered document - Rules 120 and 121 of the Land Revenue Rules, contain provisions as to how the mutation is to be attested and therein also the word 'transfer' has been used but if Rules 119 to 121 are read conjointly, to our mind, there can be no dispute that they refer to a transfer under a registered document. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the mutation proceedings may be fiscal proceedings to decide as to by whom the land revenue is payable but if the transfer is by a registered document followed by possession, the mutation can be attested and the relevant entries in the relevant register (P-21) can be made." In the present case, Smt. Rami Widow of Hira, sold the land to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- vide unregistered sale deed dated 24.2.64 and, therefore, no mutation could have been entered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of this unregistered sale-deed. The Gram Panchayat was, therefore, not justified in entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue record in place of Hira on the basis of the unregistered sale-deed and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was, therefore, justified in setting-aside the order dated 13.7.76, passed by the Gram Panchayat ordering for the mutation to be made in favour of the petitioner. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has, also, committed no error in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The order, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, therefore, does not require any interference. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******