JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the orders dated 28.04.2010 and 01.06.2010 whereby the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') has dismissed respectively the Revision Petition (No.6274/2007/LR/Sriganganagar) and the Review Petition (No.2257/2010/LR/Sriganganagar) as filed by the petitioner; and has maintained the order dated 22.05.2007 as passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, who had set aside the order dated 04.06.2002 as passed by the Additional Collector (Admn.), Sriganganagar. 2. The petitioner had questioned the disputed mutation entries dated 26.03.1999 regarding the land in question, as made by the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 6 as the heirs of original khatedar Shri Ram. The petitioner claimed that the mutation had been effected on the basis of an incorrect and false certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat and she was not given an opportunity of hearing. 3. The petitioner claimed that the mutation had been effected on the basis of an incorrect and false certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat and she was not given an opportunity of hearing. 3. In the order dated 04.06.2002, the learned Additional Collector was of opinion that the Tehsildar ought to have taken a decision after proper enquiry and after extending an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and thus, while setting aside the disputed mutation, remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned with the following, amongst other, observations:- " cgl ij euu fd;k i=koyh dk/;ku iwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g rF; lgh gS fd pd 16 ,l0,Mh0 iVokj gYdk lrt.Mk [krkSuh la[;k 44 ds i0u0 199@346 ds eq0u0 39 ds 5-705 gSDVj iRFkj u0 200@346 ds eq0u0 40 ds 3-542 gSDVj dek.M o 2-656 gSDVj vudek.M dqy 11-903 gSDVj Hkwfe jLiks0 1 rk 3 ds firk Jhjke ds uke ls [kkrsnkjh gSA Jhjke dk nsgkUr gks pqdk gS rFkk mlds okfjl rhu yM+ds loZ Jh jkedqekj&egkohj ,oa guqeku o ,d yM+dh lkfo=h= gSA ;g Hkh lgh gSa fd jkedqekj dk Hkh nsgkUr gks pqdk gSA vihykUVk dqUrknsoh vius&vki dks jkedqekj dh iq=h crk jgh gS tcfd jsLiks0 ua0 1 ds fo}ku odhy dk dFku gS fd dqUrk nsoh jkedqekj dh iq=h uk gksdj guqeku dh iq=h gSaA ;g ,d tkap dk fcUnq gSA ;g Hkh lgh gSa fd vihyk/khu vkns'k ,d rjQk gSA vihykUVk dks fcuk lqus gh ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vihyk/khu vkns'k ds izFke Kku dh fnukad ls vihy le; vof/k esa gh is'k gqbZ gSA vihyk/khu vkns'k 26-03-1999 bUrdky ntZ djokus ds fy, lajiap xzke iapk;r lrt.Mk }kjk tkjh okfjl izek.k i= xyr o QthZ tkjh djus ds lEcU/k esa dqUrk nsoh }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksV la[;k 469 fnukad 13-10-2001 iqfyl Fkkuk jk;flaguxj esa ntZ djokbZ xbZ gS ftldk pkyku Hkh l{ke U;k;ky; esa is'k gqvk gSA ge U;k;fgr esa mfpr le>rs gSa fd vihykUVk dks lquokbZ o lk{; izLrqr djus dk leqfpr volj fn;k tkdj gh dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk rks mfpr gksrk ysfdu rglhynkj jk;flguxj }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k ,d rjQk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vr% mijksDr foospu ls vihy vihykUVk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 26-03-1999 fujLr dj izdj.k rglhynkj jk;flaguxj dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk fjek.M fd;k tkrk gS fd mHk; i{kdkjku dks lquokbZ o lk{; izLrqr djus dk lewfpr volj nsrs gq, izdj.k dh iw.kZ tkap dj fu.kZ; ikfjr djsA fu.kZ; dh izfr izkIr vfHkys[kksa ds rglhynkj dks fHktokbZ tkdj i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA " 4. The respondent No.4 herein, Mahavir son of Shri Ram, preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 04.06.2002 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner who proceeded to allow the same by the judgment dated 22.05.2007, inter alia, on the consideration that the suit as filed by the present petitioner was pending in the competent Court and that the appeal as filed by her before the Additional Collector was barred by limitation but no order regarding limitation was passed by the learned Additional Collector. The Divisional Commissioner said,- " geus mHk; i{k dh cgl dks e/;utj j[krs gq, miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA izdj.k esa dqUrhnsoh dk nkok l{ke U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSa] ftlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; vf/kdkj r; gksus gSaA nkos ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj dh izdj.k esa vkxs bardky dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA bl lEcU/k eas ekuuh; jktLo e.My] jkt] vtesj us vkjvkjMh 2001 ist 375 ,oa vkj vkjMh 2003 ist 243 o 403 esa O;oLFkk nh gS fd bl izdj.k esa ;g Li"V gSa fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; nkok izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izdj.k esa bardky lu~ 1999 esa ntZ gqvk Fkk] ftlds laca/k esa rglhynkj iqu% dksbZ tkWap ugh dj ldrkA dqUrknsoh ds jkedqekj dh iq=h gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izFke vihy izLrqr djrs le; ij dksbZ Lohd`fr izkIr ugha dh xbZ FkhA vihy fe;kn ckgj Fkh] ftlds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;kA dqUrksnoh guqeku dh iq=h gSa tks nks txg Hkwfe gM+iuk pkgrk gSaA izdj.k esa jsxwyj lwV fopkjk/khu gksus ds dkj.k Jhjke ds uke ls bardky ugha j[kk tk ldrkA jsxwyj lwV ds fu.kZ; rd fooknkLin Hkwfe gLrkUrfjr ugha dh tk ldsxhA dqUrknsoh vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; esa i{kdkj ugha Fkh ftlds fy;s mls Lohd`fr ysuk vko';d Fkk] tks ugha yh xbZ gSA fe;kn ds fcUnq ij Hkh dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vihy vihykaV Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vfrfjDr ftyk dyDVj ( iz'kklu ) Jhxaxkuxj dk vkns'k fnukad 04-06-2002 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k esa jsxwyj lwV esa fu.kZ; gksus ij fu.kZ;kuqlkj dk;Zokgh lEikfnr dh tkosA " 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 22.05.2007, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition that has been considered and dismissed by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order dated 28.04.2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 22.05.2007, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition that has been considered and dismissed by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order dated 28.04.2010. The Board concurred with the learned Divisional Commissioner and said,- " v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k dqUrknsoh }kjk izLrqr ?kks"k.kk dk okn fuf.kZr gksus ls iwoZ ;g fu"d"kZ vafdr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSa fd og e`rd jkedqekj gh tk;Unk iq=h gSa vFkok vizkFkhZ la0 2 Jh guqeku dh\ bl fcUnq ds xq.kkoxq.k ij r; gksus ds i'pkr~ gh izkfFkZ;k dqUrknsoh dk fgr fu/kkZfjr gks ldsxkA blls iwoZ mls ukekUrjdj.k dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx ysus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA mr% fu;fer okn ds fu.kZ; rFkk ukekUrjdj.k la0 88 fnukad 26-03-1999 dks ;Fkkor j[krk mfpr le>rs gSA lEHkkxh; vk;qDr us Hkh vihy Lohdkj dj vfrfjDr ftyk dyDVj dk fu.kZ; fnukad 04-06-2002 fujLr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k gS fd izdj.k esa fu;efr okn esa fu.kZ; gksus ij gh fu.kZ;kuqlkj dk;Zokgh lEikfnr dh tkosaA lEHkkxh; vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-05-2007 esa ge fdlh izdkj dh fof/kd ,oa rF;kRed =qfV gksuk ugha ik;s tkus ls ;g fuxjkuh lkjghu gSa ,oa fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA " 6. The petitioner also filed a review petition that has been dismissed by the Board by the order dated 01.06.2010 finding no error apparent on the face of record. 7. Seeking to challenge the orders aforesaid, the learned counsel submits that for the purpose of mutation, the necessary inquiry was required to be made by the Tehsildar per Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Tehsildar having passed the order without holding such inquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Additional Collector had rightly remanded the matter for decision afresh after proper inquiry. It is submitted that the order as passed by the Additional Collector being in conformity with the requirement of law, called for no interference. 8. In regard to the suit, the learned counsel submitted that the revenue suit that had been filed after filing of the appeal against the mutation cannot be considered decisive of the rights of the petitioner; and even if the said revenue suit had been filed under a wrong advice, the right of the petitioner to challenge the mutation is not taken away. 9. 9. The arguments as advanced do not make out a case for interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Divisional Commissioner and, thereafter, the Board have precisely taken note of the position that the parentage of the petitioner is a matter of dispute and have rightly made the observations that the rights of the petitioner would be determined in the regular suit proceedings. 11. So far as the proceedings of mutation are concerned, the order as passed by the Additional Collector assuming existence of a dispute and the matter calling for inquiry, when not approved by the Divisional Commissioner and then by the Board on relevant consideration, no case for interference by this Court in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out particularly when the orders impugned do not suffer from any jurisdictional error.The petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******