Honble DIXIT, M.—This revision has been filed under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the decision of Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer dated 14.10.2005. The matter came up for admission. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is being heard finally and a decision on merits is being given. 2. Brief facts of the case are that non-applicant plaintiff had filed a suit under Sections 188 and 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 stating therein that the plaintiff-non-applicant was a khatedar of the land but because the applicant-defendant were interfering with his possession, a decree of temporary injunction might be issued in his favour. An application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was also filed in which a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit was prayed for. The admitted facts of this case are that in the jamabandi Svt. 2023-2026 which is also the last jamabandi prior to settlement of Ajmer District in the khata No. 302 the name of the khatedars is recorded as Rampal son of Gulzari one share and Kalyan son of Dhannalal two shares. Later on, the Settlement Department attested a mutation No. 729 in favour of the plaintiffs-non-applicants. They were made the khatedars of the entire khata No. 302. This mutation is presently under challenge is second appeal. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no injunction can be given against a co-tenant, the mutation on the basis of which temporary injunction has bee granted is under serious dispute and is impugned in both civil and criminal proceedings. Attention of this court was also drawn to enquiry reports submitted by various authorities including enquiry report by the S.D.O. Nasirabad dated 11.10.2002 in which the said mutation is said to have been found as fabricated. It was also alleged that the mutation attested on 18.6.1988 was actually backdated. 4. In his reply, the non-petitioner made a submission that the enquiry referred to by the counsel for the petitioner is not on record. He also said that in 1349 tasli jamabandi he was recorded a khudkasht. In 1358 to 1360 tasli I am recorded as a solitary khudkasht khatedar. As regards mutation No. 729 the appeal against said mutation was rejected on 4.6.2002 and the second appeal is pending. He also said that in 1349 tasli jamabandi he was recorded a khudkasht. In 1358 to 1360 tasli I am recorded as a solitary khudkasht khatedar. As regards mutation No. 729 the appeal against said mutation was rejected on 4.6.2002 and the second appeal is pending. The said criminal proceedings in Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer have come to an end as a Final Report has been submitted. On the date of filing the suit, I was the only recorded khatedar. A suit that was filed by the petitioner against that order has been dismissed and the second appeal is pending in the Board of Revenue, on which no stay order has been given. The temporary injunction has been granted after due consideration and the first appeal against the temporary injunction has also been dismissed. Hence, the revision. On the date of filing the suit I am the sole recorded khatedar. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and carefully perused the record of the case. 6. To my mind the issue is very straightforward. It is admitted by both the parties that the mutation was attested by the Settlement Department. It is settled law that the Settlement Department has no right to make any change of entries as regards the rights of the khatedar. It is also admitted that the applicant is recorded as a khatedar in the jamabandi of Svt. 2023 to 2026. No correction of entry was possible except through proper legal procedures. It has also been argued by the counsel for the non-applicants-plaintiffs that the original khatedar entry was in their solitary name and the Settlement Department has only restored this entry on the basis of Government notification. However, no such notification could be produced by the counsel for the non-applicant in spite of time being given to them. 7. Under the facts and circumstances I find no need to dig deep into the factum of mutation being fabricated or otherwise. The very exercise of attesting the mutation by the Settlement Department is without any force of law and is an Act without jurisdiction and is therefore ab initio void. 8. 2005 RRD page 97 (Budh Dan vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.), which is a D.B. judgment of the Honble Rajasthan High Court, has dealt with a similar question in some detail. 8. 2005 RRD page 97 (Budh Dan vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.), which is a D.B. judgment of the Honble Rajasthan High Court, has dealt with a similar question in some detail. Sub para 6 and 7 of para 133 may be cited herewith profit: 6. The provisions of Section 133 to 135 cannot be invoked to make alterations in the land records by referring to a pre-existing right, which has not arisen after the entries was recorded so as to alter the presumption arising in respect of existing entries about their being true. 7. If any alteration is required to be made in the entries made in the record of rights on the basis of right claimed to be pre-existing and not acquired thereafter, can only be done by seeking a declaration of right claimed in respect of the land in question by having recourse to appropriate proceedings under law under which such right is claimed, which in the present case in Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the entries can be altered only as a consequence of any giving effect to the finding recorded in such lis. 9. The ratio of this case is totally applicable to this case, as the Settlement Department has apparently attested the mutation in support of a pre-existing right, which it had no authority to do. 10. Thus it is established beyond doubt that the very act of deciding the mutation was ab initio void and hence the mutation is a nullity. According to the law laid down in (2004) 8 SCC page 706, a void document can be set-aside at any stage, even in collateral or execution proceedings. As it has come to the notice of this court that mutation No. 729 is a void document and a nullity, I set it aside accordingly. Hence the revision is accepted and temporary injunction is vacated. The mutation No. 729 having been declared void and having been set aside the parties are free to agitate the changed situation in the various pending proceedings. Pronounced in the open court.