JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 5th May, 1995 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar and the order dated 20th November, 2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and to modify the subsequent order dated 24th April, 2007, passed by the Board of Revenue. Brief facts of the case are that a land bearing Khasra Nos.437 and 439/1345 consist of 3 bigha and 15 biswa was recorded in the name of non-petitioners' father Bansidhar. He died and thereupon land was recorded in favour of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram leaving third son Prahlad Ray. The mutation was not opened based on will thus should have been with equal share of three sons of Bansidhar. After mutation made in favour of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram, half of the land was sold by Chhaju Ram to the petitioner herein. The sale of half of the portion was challenged by maintaining a suit by Satyanarain. The suit preferred by Satyanarain was dismissed by the SDO Court vide the order dated 15th March, 1994. An appeal against the said order was preferred by Satyanarain and having been allowed, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner preferred a review petition and it was partly allowed. 2. Learned counsel submits that half of the portion of the land was purchased from Chhaju Ram after verification of the revenue record. The land in question was recorded in the name of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram with equal share. The petitioner purchased half of the share entered in the name of Chhaju Ram. Satyanarain and others filed a suit to challenge the sale of half of the land. It was precisely on the ground that land was belonging to Bansidhar and after his death, it should have been mutated in the name of three sons namely, Satyanarain, Chhaju Ram and Prahlad Rai. The SDO court dismissed the suit. On appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, order was reversed as mutation could not have been opened in favour of two brothers leaving third. Each brother should have been equal share in the land. The petitioner thereupon preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue but it has been dismissed. The SDO court dismissed the suit. On appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, order was reversed as mutation could not have been opened in favour of two brothers leaving third. Each brother should have been equal share in the land. The petitioner thereupon preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue but it has been dismissed. The review petition was partly allowed holding that petitioner is entitled to retain ? share of the land sold by Chhaju Ram. The impugned orders have been passed in ignorance of revenue record where land was recorded with ½ share in favour of each brother. In view of above and petitioner being bona fide purchaser, impugned orders may be set aside. 3. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 4. The perusal of the orders of Board of Revenue and Revenue Appellate Authority show that land of Khasra Nos.437 and 439/1345 was recorded in the name of Bansidhar having three sons including petitioner. The said Bansidhar died and thereupon the land belonging to him was recorded in the name of two sons, Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram with half share each. The petitioner purchased the share of land of Chhaju Ram but mutation entry cannot decide the title. There is nothing on record to show basis on which property of Bansidhar was to be recorded with half share in favour of Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram. In absence of it, mutation was opened leaving third son, Prahlad Rai. The right cannot be claimed based on the mutation, therefore, suit was rightly maintained to challenge the entry. It was accepted by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue. No document has been produced to justify recording of half share in favour of two brothers leaving third. On a review petition, the Board of Revenue granted relief to the petitioner to retain the land to the extent of ? share. It is taking into consideration that Chhaju Ram was entitled to ? share and having sold it to the petitioner, protection is to be given. 5. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue cannot be said to be perverse or illegal, rather, it is in consonance to the provisions of law. share. It is taking into consideration that Chhaju Ram was entitled to ? share and having sold it to the petitioner, protection is to be given. 5. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue cannot be said to be perverse or illegal, rather, it is in consonance to the provisions of law. After death of father, the land was required to be recorded in favour of a person who gets it in inheritance unless a will has been executed or any other document to make one or other entitled for the property. There is nothing on record to show that land belonging to Bansidhar should have gone to Satyanarain and Chhaju Ram leaving Prahlad Rai. I do not find any error in the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and in the review petition, whereby, protection of ? share has been given. It is taking into consideration that mutation opened in favour of two brothers is not decisive, rather, it comes when an order is passed by the court or is based on the document, like will or partition. No such document exists. In view of above, I do not find any reason to call interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.