ORDER Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 28.2.97 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby an application preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 9 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) questioning the mutation no. 52 and 60 of the land ad measuring 7 bighas 6 biswas comprising khasra no. 258 situated at village Avloj, Tehsil & District Jalore, recorded in the name of the petitioners have been cancelled and the land in question is directed to be recorded in the name of Deity Shri Vishnu Bhagwan. 2. The relevant facts are that Shri Uda s/o Chatra Saadh sold the agriculture land measuring 7.06 bighas comprising khasra no. 258 situated at village-Avloj, claiming the same to be his khatedari land, in favour of the petitioners no. 1 & 2 herein, vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.63. On the strength of the sale deed executed as aforesaid, the land was mutated in the name of the petitioners no. 1 & 2, vide mutation No. 52 dated 22.1.64. On 4.4.64, the petitioner no. 1 & 2 further transferred the land in favour of the petitioner no.3 and accordingly, the land was mutated in his name vide mutation No. 60. 3. In the year 1989, Tehsildar made an application under Section 82 of the Act before the Additional Collector, Jalore for cancellation of the aforesaid mutation Nos. 52 & 53 on the ground that the land in dispute belongs to Doli banam Mandir Shri Vishnu Bhagwan and Uda s/o Chatra had no right to transfer this land in favour of the petitioner no. 1 & 2. The petitioners contested the application by filing a reply thereto taking the stand that the said land was never land of Doli in the name of Mandir Shri Vishnu Bhagwan rather, it was khatedari land of Uda. The petitioners relied upon khasra bandobast pertaining to Samvat 2003-04 in order to show that the name of Doli banam Mandir Shri Vishnu Bhagwan has been entered into the documents by way of interpolation in different ink and different hand, without there being any order of the competent authority. The Additional Collector, Jalore, vide order dated 24.7.91, rejected the application preferred by the Tehsildar, Jalore to make a reference to the Board of Revenue. 4. The Additional Collector, Jalore, vide order dated 24.7.91, rejected the application preferred by the Tehsildar, Jalore to make a reference to the Board of Revenue. 4. Thereupon, the State of Rajasthan submitted an application invoking the power of general superintendence of Board of Revenue under Section 9 of the Act. The Board of Revenue relying upon the revenue record of Samvat 2005 to 2029 arrived at the finding that the land in question was the Maufi (Doli) land of Deity Shri Vishnu Bhagwan and even after abolition of Doli, the land was wrongly mutated in the name of Pujari and thus, on the basis of the illegal transfer made by the Pujari, the petitioners herein cannot claim any right over the land in question. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue proceeded to quash the mutation Nos. 52 & 60 and further ordered that land in question be recorded in the name of Deity Shri Vishnu Bhagwan as it was. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the application seeking reference of the matter to the Board of Revenue, preferred by the Tehsildar, Jalore having been rejected by the Additional Collector, Jalore, after recording categorical finding regarding interpolation in the record, instead of challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, the State could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under Section 9 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the revenue record pertaining to Samvat 2003-04 was not placed before the Board of Revenue, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that khasra bandobast of Samvat 2003-04 clearly shows that the land in question was recorded as khudkhast land of Uda and after interpolation therein by different ink and different hand, the name of Deity was entered and thus the entries of the land in question in the revenue record in the name of Deity is of no consequences. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue could not have exercised the power under Section 9 of the Act after inordinate delay and therefore, the order impugned passed canceling the mutations effected in favour of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Learned Government Counsel submitted that khasra bandobast is not record of rights and there is nothing on record to show that the record was interpolated. 6. Learned Government Counsel submitted that khasra bandobast is not record of rights and there is nothing on record to show that the record was interpolated. Learned Government Counsel submitted that it is not even the case of the petitioner that any point of time, Uda was recorded as khatedar tenant of the land in question in record of rights and thus, nothing turns on an isolated entry even if it is made in khasra bandobast of a particular year in his name. Learned Government Counsel submitted that indisputably, the land in question is recorded in Jamabandi from 2008 to 2028 in the name of idol Shri Vishnu Bhagwan as khudkasht and therefore, after resumption of Jagir, the Deity has acquired khatedari right over the land in question. In support of the contention, learned Government Counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in the matter of “Tara and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and anr.”, (2015) 3 WLN 193. Learned Government Counsel submitted that merely because the Additional Collector refused to make a reference on the application preferred by the Tehsildar, Jalore, the Board of Revenue is not precluded from invoking its power under Section 9 of the Act. Learned Government Counsel submitted that on the basis of the wrong mutation entries, the petitioners cannot claim any right and therefore, in absence of any khatedari rights being accrued in favour of Uda, the petitioners cannot claim any right on the strength of sale deed executed by Uda in their favour and thus, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue, quashing the mutation entries and issuing directions to enter the land in question in the name of Deity does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the petitioners are claiming that the land in question was khudkasht land of Uda solely on the basis of khasra bandobast of Samvat 2003-04. It is not in dispute that the khasra bandobast is not record of rights. There is nothing on record suggesting that in the record of rights, Uda was ever recorded as khatedar of the land in question. It is not in dispute that the khasra bandobast is not record of rights. There is nothing on record suggesting that in the record of rights, Uda was ever recorded as khatedar of the land in question. Even, as per the khasra bandobast 2003-04 placed on record, the land is entered in the name of Deity Banam Mandir Shri Vishnu Bhagwan as Dolidar and the petitioner is shown to be pujari of Deity. Though it is attempted by the petitioner to show that the record was interpolated but there is nothing on record suggesting that the disputed land was khudkasht land of the petitioner and thus, without there being any evidence, substantiating the bald allegation of interpolation raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that as per jamabandi of 2008-2029 continuously the land was recorded as khudkasht land of Deity and the petitioner was shown to be pujari of Deity. 9. It is to be noticed that the land in question was held by Deity as Doli which as per the provisions of Schedule I of Rajasthan Land Reforms & Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') is included in the land held in jagir. But then, the land in question being khudkasht land of Deity cultivated and managed by its pujari, after resumption of jagir, the Deity become khatedar tenant of the land. The pujari who was holding possession of the land as trustee had no right whatsoever to alienate the land held by Deity. This aspect of the matter stands covered by a decision in 'Tara and others v. State of Rajasthan and another' (2015) 3 WLN 193, wherein while considering the issue regarding right of Deity over the land held as khudkasht as also the right of Shebait/Pujari cultivating/managing, the land held by Deity as khudkasht to alienate such land, a Full Bench of this Court held : “20. The legislature by enacting Jagirs Act of 1952 included the Doli and Muafi lands of the deity as jagirs. Schedule I of the Jagirs Act of 1952 included the land held in Jagirs as Doli and Maufi. All the lands were resumed by the State vide Notification issued under section 21 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. No Jagir of any deity was resumed prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 15.10.1955. Schedule I of the Jagirs Act of 1952 included the land held in Jagirs as Doli and Maufi. All the lands were resumed by the State vide Notification issued under section 21 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. No Jagir of any deity was resumed prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 15.10.1955. The consequences of resumption, which was held to be acquisition by the Supreme Court in Thakur Amar Singhji and ors. v. State of Rajasthan and ors.(supra) are given in Section 22 of the Jagirs Act of 1952. Section 22(1)(a) provides that the right, title and interest of the Jagirdar and every other person claiming through him shall stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances, The deity, therefore, even if it is to be treated as perpetual minor, ceased to have any interest or right in the jagir lands in which deity was recorded as Dolidar or Muafidar. Section 23 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 permitted the Jagirdar to continue in possession of the lands, which were khudkasht on the date of resumption of jagir. It was necessary for all Jagirdars including Hindu Idol (deity) that they had khudkasht lands before claiming khatedari rights in the area of lands held as khudkasht. The right and title of the persons claiming through the Deity were not different than that of deity. Their rights were also resumed under Section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952. They did not have any independent right other than rights of Hindu Idol (deity). Section 9 of the Jagirs Act of 1952 allowed the khatedari rights of the tenant on which they had direct relations with the State Government. Section 22(1) of the Jagirs Act of 1952 provided that the right and title of the person claiming through Hindu Idol (deity) also stood resumed to the State. (Emphasis supplied) xxxx 25. In our opinion, on the aforesaid settled principles of law, the Hindu idol (deity) could only hold such lands in Jagir, which Shebait/Pujari was cultivating for such deity, having direct nexus with agricultural operations either themselves or through hired labour or servant engaged by them as to claim to be khudkasht and to be protected from resumption/acquisition under the Jagirs Act of 1952. If the land was given for cultivation to a tenant or was cultivated through a tenant, such land became khatedari of the tenant and on which the tenant had direct relations with the State. The Jagirs Act of 1952 took away all the rights of the Jagirdars including Hindu Idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar on the land cultivated by the tenants. They ceased to have any right on such land. The Shebait/Pujari could not have any independent status to have claimed any right over such land cultivated by tenants. Such tenancy could also not be regarded as sub-tenant of Hindu Idol (deity) to confer any right on the Hindu Idol (deity). 26. In view of the above discussion, we decide the question no. (i) in favour of the State and against the Shebait/Pujari claiming the land to be saved by the Jagirs Act of 1952. The land held in Jagir by Hindu idol (deity) as Dolidar or Muafidar cultivated by a person other than the Shebait/Pujari of the deity personally or by hired labour or servants engaged by its Shebait/Pujari as a tenant of the deity, shall vest in the State, after the Jagirs Act of 1952. The Hindu idol (deity), even if it is treated to be a perpetual minor, could not continue to hold such land. Such land cannot be treated to be in its personal cultivation. A tenant of such land cultivating the land acquired the rights of khatedar of the State. Such land under the tenancy of a person other than Shebait/Purjari of Hindu Idol (deity) became khatedari land of such tenant. The name of Hindu Idol (deity) from such land had to be expunged from the revenue records with Shebait/Pujuri having no right to claim the land as Khatedar. Consequently, they had no right to transfer such lands, and all such transfers have to be treated as null and void, in contravention of the Jagirs Act 1952, and the land under such transfers to be resumed by the State. (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is really strange that without there being any revenue record showing that Uda was the khatedar tenant of the land, on the strength of the sale deed executed by him in favour of petitioner no. (Emphasis supplied) 10. It is really strange that without there being any revenue record showing that Uda was the khatedar tenant of the land, on the strength of the sale deed executed by him in favour of petitioner no. 1 & 2, the mutation was effected by the revenue authority in their name and on the basis of subsequent transfer in the name of petitioner no. 3. In any case, the mutation proceedings are merely fiscal proceedings and do not determine the rights of the parties and does not confer title and therefore, merely on the basis of mutation effected, Uda and subsequent transferee cannot claim khatedari rights over the land in question. 11. In view of discussion above, it can safely concluded that on the strength of sale deed executed by Uda, who had no title over the land in question, the transferee, the petitioners herein cannot claim any right whatsoever over the land in question inasmuch as the sale deed executed in their favour by a person having no title over the land is null and void. 12. Coming to the question of delay, it is to be noticed that the petitioners were never conferred khatedari rights over the land in question and therefore, the question of their khatedari rights being disturbed after inordinate delay does not arise. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where the land of Deity was sought to be grabbed by the pujari and subsequent transferee apparently by committing fraud and the mutation entries were effected, ignoring the record of rights, the Board of Revenue has committed no jurisdictional error in quashing the mutations, invoking its power of general superintendence of revenue courts under Section 9 of the Act. 13. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition lacks merits, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.