SHARMA, Member.–These two revision petitions are under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, against the order of Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 20.1.2000. (2). The brief facts of the cases are that in village Golawas tehsil Behror khasra No.55 to 58 belonged to Maduram. After the death of Maduram, Gram Panchayat sanctioned mutation in the name of his son Kailash and Suresh and wife Kamla. Later on these three persons sold the properties through registered sale-deed to Bhoop Singh and by mutation No.74 dated 15.2.1999 land was entered in his name. Later on Lalaram filed an appeal on the basis of an unregistered document saying that the disputed land was given to him on 99 years lease by the land owner. The S.D.O. by his order dated 19.7.1999 remanded the cases and mutation No.73 and 74 were set aside and directions were given to decide the mutation after taking evidence regarding possession etc. (3). Two appeals have been dismissed against this order and, therefore, this revision has been submitted before the Board of Revenue. (4). Counsel for the petitioner has cited 1994 RRD page 22 (1), 1992 RRD page 360 (2) to support his case and has submitted that they are the real heirs of Maduram and the original mutation was correctly sanctioned. (5). The counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that agreement for lease is in their favour. They are in possession of the land. Suits are pending in the lower Courts. He has cited 1995 RRD page 141 (3) and 2000 RRD page 168 (4) to support his case. (6). Perused the record and weighed the arguments put forwarded by both the sides. (7). Suits are already pending in the lower Courts. When the mutation No.73 was entered it was entered in the name of the deceased persons sons and wife. Even the S.D.O. has admitted at page of his judgment that mutation No.73 does not require any modification. Regarding mutation No.74 the S.D.O. had wanted proof regarding possession and had remanded the case. But at the same time he has also set aside the mutation No.73 in addition to 74. Regarding mutation No.73 he already felt at para 6 of the page 4 that mutation No.73 does not require any modification. Regarding mutation No.74 the S.D.O. had wanted proof regarding possession and had remanded the case. But at the same time he has also set aside the mutation No.73 in addition to 74. Regarding mutation No.73 he already felt at para 6 of the page 4 that mutation No.73 does not require any modification. From the file it appears that after the Ikrarnama was signed in 1986 Lalaram appears to have got the possession and, therefore, in the interest of justice it was correct on the part of S.D.O. to have remanded the case of both the mutation No.73 & 74. This order has also been upheld by the Addl. Commissioner, Jaipur. The case has just been remanded and the petitioner should not be unnecessarily worried about the matter, since the Tehsildar will take a fresh decision after taking evidence regarding the possession and other things. Therefore, although I would have liked to sustain the mutation No.73 as it was done to the legal representatives of Maduram, in view of the fact hat they have sold the land and mutation No.74 has also come into existence and, therefore, it was a correct decision to set aside both these mutations. Legal representatives have already filed a suit for specific performance in the civil Court. And, therefore, it will be proper that some kind of scrutiny is done once again at the level of Tehsildar as per the observations of S.D.O. Behror dated 19.7.1999. (8). Therefore, we find that there are no solid grounds to interfere in the orders of the lower Courts as the matter has just been remanded by S.D.O. to Tehsildar for taking fresh decision regarding land in the mutation No.74 and 75. Therefore, these two revisions are hereby rejected. Pronounced in the open Court.