Honble Arvind, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order dated 4.5.2006 passed by learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner in case No. 11/2004. 2. Briefly the facts of this case are that the land situated in village Ridmalsar of khasra No. 40/19/7 area 29 bighas 14 biswas was recorded in the names of Peera and Chhotya and after the death of Peera the share of Peera was also mutated in the name of Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan through mutation No. 79. Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan sold this land during his lifetime through a registered sale deed dated 17.3.75 to the petitioner and handed over the possession at the same time. As per the registered sale deed dated 17.3.75 mutation No. 177 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner subsequently became khatedar of the disputed land. During the lifetime of Chhotu Khan neither daughters of Chhotu Khan nor daughters of Peera made any claim on the disputed land. The non-petitioners from the very beginning had the knowledge of the registered sale-deed dated 17.3.75 but hiding this fact they entered into a conspiracy and made an appeal against the mutation No. 79 before learned Sub-Divisional Officer. In this appeal the recorded khatedar petitioner was intentionally not made a party for reasons best known to them. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer ordered as under:— ^^mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vihykaVk dh ;g vihy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ikrk gwWA ftls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vknsk mi ljiap xzke iapk;r fjMeylj iqjksfgrku ftlds }kjk bUrdky la[;k 79 NksVw[kka ds uke ls [kksyk x;k voS/k o U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk i=koyh rglhynkj ¼jktLo½ chdkusj dks bl funsZk ds lkFk fjek.M dh tkrh gS fd ih: [kka ds okfjlku dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj iznku dj ckn tkap bUrdky rLnhd ckcr~ dk;Zokgh djsA<span> 3. The affected recorded khatedar Shanti Devi made an appeal against the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner Bikaner praying that the land had already been purchased long back in the year 1975 and the appeal against the mutation was made after a long lapse of about 15 years before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and even when there was knowledge to the non-petitioners No.1 to 4 that criminal case was initiated against the petitioner they avoided inclusion of the petitioner as a necessary party. Learned Additional Divisional Commissioner heard the appeal and he went beyond his jurisdiction and made an order in which on the one hand he upheld the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4.4.2000 and on the other hand he issued an order like thus:— ^^vr% vknsk gS fd vihy vihykUVk lkjghu gksus ls vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼mÙkj½] chdkusj fnukad 4-4-2000 cgky j[kk tkrk gSA rglhynkj chdkusj mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼mÙkj½] chdkusj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 4-4-2000 ds Øe esa jsLiksaMsaV la[;k 2 rk 4 vFkkZr~ eq- jger iq=h ih:[kka] eq- ck;yk iq=h ih:[kka] eq- >aojh iq=h ih:[kka dkSe eqlyeku ds uke cfgLlk cjkcj esa ih:[kka ds fgLls dh vkjkth ds fy, crkSj [kkrsnkj ntZ djus dh dk;Zokgh djkosaA 4. Aggrieved against the order of learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner this is a revision petition. 5. With the consent of the parties this matter was heard for final decision at the stage of admission. It was also agreed that the relevant record in this matter is only judgments of both the lower courts, hence there was no need of further calling of any other record. 6. Arguing in support of the petition the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased the land from the recorded khatedar and he is a bona fide purchaser. He also argued that the non-petitioners No.1 to 4 had the knowledge about a purchase of the year 1975 but concealing that fact the non-petitioner No.4 Mst. Jhanwari preferred an appeal before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by impleading other non-petitioners as respondents but did not implead the petitioner as a necessary party. He also argued that the non-petitioners No.1 to 4 had the knowledge about a purchase of the year 1975 but concealing that fact the non-petitioner No.4 Mst. Jhanwari preferred an appeal before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by impleading other non-petitioners as respondents but did not implead the petitioner as a necessary party. He also argued that the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer was obtained through concealment of facts and misrepresentation, as such the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer is per se perverse and erroneous and violative of principle of natural justice; hence needs to be set aside. he also argued that the order of learned Additional Divisional Commissioner is not only perverse and erroneous but unjust and improper because on the one hand he ordered to uphold the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer and on the other hand he ordered to record the khatedari without any further enquiry. This order is full of contradictions. He also argued that the claim of the bona fide purchaser was ignored and even when it was from the revenue record including entries in the Zamabandi, appeal before learned Sub-Divisional Officer was filed beyond limitation. No attention was paid by learned S.D.O. to the fact that the appeal which he was hearing was time barred because the appeal was preferred after a lapse of 15 years. The order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer in itself was unjust and improper and beyond limitation but learned Additional Divisional Commissioner ignored the pleading of the petitioner and made an order which is perverse, unjust, improper and erroneous. He also argued that the order of learned Additional divisional Commissioner Shri J.C. Vishnoi in itself speaks in volumes that learned Additional Divisional Commissioner has no knowledge either of law or of equity. On the one hand he is upholding the order of remand made by learned S.D.O. and on the other hand he is issuing directions to record khatedari directly without any enquiry. Such an order cannot be upheld and needs to be set aside. 7. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners No.2 to 4 is that originally the land belonged to Pera and Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan and subsequently the land was mutated on the death of Pera in the name of Chhotu Khan alone. 7. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioners No.2 to 4 is that originally the land belonged to Pera and Chhotya alias Chhotu Khan and subsequently the land was mutated on the death of Pera in the name of Chhotu Khan alone. There is no order of any competent court or authority which could justify entering of mutation No. 79 in the name of Chhotu Khan son of Sher Khan. He also argued that the mistake which took place long back can be corrected because it was not justified on the part of revenue authorities to have entered the name of Chhotu Khan as a sole khatedar on the basis of mutation No. 79 which was recorded without any authority. He also argued that limitation is not relevant in this case because any order on mutation which is without any authority can be agitated at any time. He also argued that the criminal proceedings have no relevance to civil matters. As such he prayed that the petitioner of the petitioner may be dismissed on the principle of Caveator-emptor. He also argued that in view of the decision of Honble High Court Panchayats have no authority to sanction or decide mutations as Panchayats are not Revenue Officers under the Land Revenue Act. 8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsels and having carefully perused the impugned decisions of the lower courts, I come to the following conclusions:— (i) It has not been disputed that the land was sold through a registered sale deed in the year 1975 as mentioned in the petition and in consequence to the sale deed and handing over of the possession the land was mutated in the name of the bona fide purchaser it was recorded in the name of the purchaser. As such the purchaser could have no doubt about the validity of sale of the seller. When he purchased after Verification of the land record. (ii) The sale-deed executed by the Registrar in the year 1975 has not been cancelled by any competent court and as such it exists as a valid document and the presumption will be in favour of the petitioner unless the sale deed is set aside by a competent Court of jurisdiction. When he purchased after Verification of the land record. (ii) The sale-deed executed by the Registrar in the year 1975 has not been cancelled by any competent court and as such it exists as a valid document and the presumption will be in favour of the petitioner unless the sale deed is set aside by a competent Court of jurisdiction. In view of this fact it was highly improper and unjust on the part of learned Additional Divisional Commissioner to have ignored the factum of existence of registered sale deed and the factum of mutation No.177 and the khatedari rights obtained by Smt. Shanti. The name of the petitioner exists in jamabandi as a khatedar and khatedari rights cannot be taken away in an apeal of mutation. Mutation is a fiscal arrangement and taking away khatedari rights duly entered in jamabandi through an appeal of a mutation without giving opportunity ofhearing is nothing but unjust and improper. (iii) Learned S.D.O. only remanded the matter for enquiry to Tehsildar but learned Additional Divisional Commissioner even while upholding the order of learned Sub-Divisional Officer directly ordered to enter khatedari totally ignoring the claim of the petitioner, who is a recorded khatedar. 9. In view of the conclusions above both the impugned orders of learned Sub-Divisional Officer (North) Bikaner dated 4.4.2000 and learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner dated 4.5.2006 are set aside and in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is ordered that learned Tehsildar Bikaner will hear the petitioner and the non-petitioners and then consider the matter afresh in view of the facts and circumstances of this matter. Revision is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Pronounced.