SINGHAL, Member – The applicants have filed this revision under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short ``the Act) against the judgment of Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur dated 20.8.99, by which the appeal filed by the applicants has been rejected. (2). In short the facts of the case are that mutation No. 291 was opened on the basis of the sale deed executed by the then khatedar Shri Khemraj in favour of non-applicant No.1 Jangbaz. The Patwari reported that the purchaser is not possession at the site. On this report Tehsildar refused to accept the mutation in favour of non-applicant. Aggrieved by this, the non-applicant No.1 filed an appeal before S.D.O., Chittorgarh which was accepted by him on 26.12.98 Against this, the applicants filed an appeal before the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur which has been rejected by the order under revision. Now, this revision has been filed by the applicants. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for non-applicant and have gone through the record and the impugned order. (4). The applicants have averred in the memo of revision that the non-applicant No.1 has prepared a forged sale deed in his favour and the questioned sale deed had never been executed by the then khatedar Shri Khemraj. Since the patwari has reported that the non-applicant No.1 is not in possession of the disputed land; therefore, the Tehsildar was right in not accepting the mutation. The lower court has erred in not accepting the contention of the applicants. On the contrary the learned counsel of the non-applicant while supporting the judgment passed by the courts below has argued that the seller Khemraj has conceded in his application dated 4.5.92 that he has delivered the possession to the purchaser on the disputed land as he has sold it by dint of registered sale deed. He has also argued that the disputed land has been transferred through a registered sale deed containing a recital that possession has also been handed over, there is no option but to open muta-tion. He has Laxmikant vs. Madan Lal (1), Harish Kumar vs. Ganga Devi (2). (5). I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of non-applicants. He has also argued that the disputed land has been transferred through a registered sale deed containing a recital that possession has also been handed over, there is no option but to open muta-tion. He has Laxmikant vs. Madan Lal (1), Harish Kumar vs. Ganga Devi (2). (5). I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of non-applicants. The disputed land has been sold to the non-applicant No.1 by the then khatedar Khemraj through registered sale deed in which recital has been made that the possession has been handed over to non-applicant No.1. The Tehsildar did not open mutation only on the basis of the report of patwari. How the patwari has reported that the purchaser is not in possession of the disputed land because he has not been asked before opening the mutation. No enquiry has been made by patwari in this connection in presence of non-applicant No.1. Therefore, mutation deserves to be attested in view of rules 133(3) and 141 of the Act, as envisaged in 1997 RRD 237. The Single Bench of this Board as held in 1994 RRD 22 that in a case in which land has been transferred by the registered sale deed containing a recital that possession has also been handed over, there is no option but to open mutation. It has also been held that where land has been transferred through registered sale deed the denial of the sale by the vendor is of no consequence. The applicants have averred in the memo of revision that the sale is forged one. In mutation proceedings this kind of denial is of no consequence. If the applicants have any grudge against the sale deed, they are free to challenge it in the competent court of law. I find no illegality or perversity in the finding of the court below. (6). Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. Pronounced in the open court.