Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have challenged the mutation order dt. 17.02.1964 by preferring appeal under Sec. 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The appeal was allowed vide order dt. 04.06.2004. The respondent Kishana Ram preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 27.07.2007 on the ground that since there is regular suit pending between the parties, therefore, the first appellate Court should not have set aside the mutation order passed long ago. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the mutation entries were absolutely fabricated as it is apparent from the revenue record itself. It is submitted that in any case, the respondent could not have got the entries in his name as he is not successor of Lalaram. It is submitted that even if the Board of Revenue was of the view that no entry should have been changed during the pendency of the regular suit then the entry in the name of Lalaram should have been restored in place of setting aside of the appellate order by which the entry in the name of Kishna Ram was set aside. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the facts of the case. 5. It is settled law that mere mutation order and entry made on the basis of such order itself neither create or extinguish any right, title or interest of any person. So far as rights of the party with regard to any agricultural land are concerned, they are decided in accordance with law framed in the State of Rajasthan known as Rajasthan Tenancy Act and regulated by the procedure as provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Since the Board of Revenue has decided that the appellate Court could not have interfered in the mutation order so as to make any changes in the revenue record during the pendency of regular suit where right, title and interest of parties will be decided, therefore, I do not find that the Board of Revenue has committed any illegality in passing the order, rather the Board of Revenue rightly did so. However, it may be observed that the Court while deciding the regular suit should not be influenced by any finding recorded by any of the authorities in mutation proceedings. 6. However, it may be observed that the Court while deciding the regular suit should not be influenced by any finding recorded by any of the authorities in mutation proceedings. 6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, hence, the writ petition of the petitioners is dismissed. * * * * *