MATHUR, M.—As above two revision petitions have been preferred against the common judgment passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 26.3.2003, therefore, these revision petitions are being decided by a common order. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Gram Panchayat Rata Khurd Panchayat Samiti Kishangarh Bas District Alwar has attested the mutation No. 44 in favour of non petitioner No. 2 Banjar Singh with respect to the land bearing khasra No. 206, 208, 209, 211, 212 situated of Basai Balan Tehsil Kishangarh Bas District Alwar, in place of original khatedar Man Singh on the basis of registered sale deed dated 18.4.1884. Being dissatisfied by the mutation No. 44 the non-petitioner No. 1 Pahalwan Singh has filed an appeal before the S.D.O., Kishangarh Bas who in due course allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 30.3.1999 and matter was remanded to the Tehsildar Kishangarh Bas with the direction to effect the mutation after due enquiry. 3. The petitioner Lakhmir Singh and Kailash Chand claiming themselves as bonafide purchaser of the disputed land preferred two different appeals before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur against the judgment passed by the learned S.D.O. Kishangarh Bas on 30.3.1999. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur by judgment dated 26.3.2003, hence, petitioners brought these matters before the Board of Revenue. 4. I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they have purchased the land from non-petitioner No. 2 bonafidely the learned S.D.O. Kishangarh Bas has erred in quashing the mutation No. 44 and in remanding the matter back to the concerned Tehsildar. Both the courts below have passed the judgment without appreciating the evidence and therefore, revision petitions are liable to be accepted. 6. On the contrary the counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that in the year 1978 the original khatedar Man Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 Pahalwan Singh, therefore, on the basis of the so called registered sale deed 18.4.1984 the Gram Panchayat has no right to attest the mutation, hence, both the courts have committed no error in passing the impugned judgment. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions made by both the learned counsel and also have carefully perused the available record. 8. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions made by both the learned counsel and also have carefully perused the available record. 8. On perusal of the record it appears that the original khatedar Man Singh has executed a registered sale deed of the disputed land in favour of non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Pahalwan Singh in the year 1978. This fact is not disputed that concerned Gram Panchayat has attested mutation No. 44 of the disputed land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 18.4.1984 executed by the same khatedar Man Singh. 9. This is settled proposition of the law that once two registered sale deeds have been executed in favour of the same land then earlier registered sale deed will take effect in comparison to the later registered sale-deed as executor of the later sale deed has no right to transfer property which has been already sold by him by way of registered sale deed. 10. It is also evident from the case file that both the non-petitioners have filed a compromise before the subordinate court, therefore, in this context both the courts have committed no error in passing the impugned judgment. 11. Hence, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the judgment passed by the courts below, therefore, these revision petitions being devoid of any merit are accordingly dismissed. 12. Pronounced in open court.