JUDGMENT & ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.07.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur and the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 2. The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred an appeal against the order of Nayab Tehsildar. It was to challenge the mutation where name of Heeralal was entered in the revenue record in reference to Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955"). The appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 22.02.1997. Heeralal preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 22.02.1997 passed by the Additional Collector was set aside. The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that part of land was belonging to Shyobux and on his death, it was recorded in the name of Heeralal, being natural son. Heeralal sold the land to Surajmal. The non-petitioner Purshottam preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to challenge the mutation where name of Heeralal was entered for ½ of the land. The appeal was allowed ignoring the delay of 30 years. It was even in ignorance of the fact that revenue suits have been preferred by the parties and therein only rights of the parties would be determined. In the fiscal proceedings of mutation, title of the parties cannot be determined. 4. The case of the petitioner is that being natural son of Shyobux, name of Heeralal was rightly entered and he later on sold the land to Surajmal, who was not party to the appeal hence impugned orders deserve to be set aside. It is moreso when Purshottam had no locus to maintain the appeal. He claimed his right being adopted son of Ganpat Lal having no right in the land belonging to Shyobux. A prayer is accordingly to set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector and by the Board of Revenue. The alternative prayer has also been made. It is submitted that two revenue suits are pending wherein rights of the parties would be determined. A prayer is accordingly to set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector and by the Board of Revenue. The alternative prayer has also been made. It is submitted that two revenue suits are pending wherein rights of the parties would be determined. If interference in the impugned orders is not made, it may be clarified that rights of the parties would not be affected in the pending revenue suits, rather, their rights would be determined therein only. 5. Learned counsel for non-petitioner Purshottam has opposed the petition. He submits that mutation was opened in the name of Heeralal ignoring the share of Shyobux, his natural father. The land was recorded in the name of 17 khatedars and Shyobux was having a very small share therein. The entry was otherwise made in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955, whereas, the Tehsildar had no authority to grant khatedari in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955. The non-petitioner Purshottam thus preferred an appeal immediately when he became major, hence, it was with the justified delay. 6. It is further submitted that land was sold to Surajmal while injunction order was existing in favour of Purshottam. In view of above, right of Surajmal should not be recognized and he cannot be said to be necessary party for challenge to the mutation proceedings. It is however admitted that revenue suits are pending and rights of the parties would be determined therein. It has been clarified that Purshottam is claiming right in the land in reference to share of Ganpat Lal. He is not questioning the share of Heeralal, if comes from Shyobux. It is however to be recorded to the extent of share of Shyobux and cannot be in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955. It is moreso when no application to declare Heeralal to be khatedar was ever submitted. A prayer is accordingly to maintain the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 8. The brief facts of the case have already been given. A land measuring 74 bigha was recorded in the name of 17 tenants. Shyobux was one of them and later on died. Heeralal thereupon made an application to enter his name being natural son of Shyobux. 8. The brief facts of the case have already been given. A land measuring 74 bigha was recorded in the name of 17 tenants. Shyobux was one of them and later on died. Heeralal thereupon made an application to enter his name being natural son of Shyobux. The Tehsildar recorded name of Heeralal but while passing the order, khatedari rights were given for ½ of the land in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955, though land was earlier recorded in the name of 17 tenants and Shyobux was not having ½ share. The Tehsildar has no authority to make declaration of khatedari rights in reference to Section 19 of the Act of 1955. In view of above, mutation proceeding was challenged by Purshottam though after the period of 30 years. The clarification about delay has been given. Purshottam became major in the year 1989 thus immediately thereupon he preferred the suit. He is not claiming right against the share of Shyobux but of Ganpatlal, being adopted son. Whether Purshottam has any right or not, would be decided in the pending revenue suit. In the same manner, what are the rights of Heeralal or to what extent he has right in the land, would also be determined in the pending suit. The impugned order has been assailed arising out of fiscal proceedings because mutation cannot determine the rights of the parties. In view of above, I find that controversy about rights of the parties and extent of share would be determined in the pending revenue suit. It is informed that injunction orders exist in favour of the parties inter se. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The writ petitions are however disposed of with the observation that order of the Board of Revenue or this court would not affect the pending revenue suits of the parties, rather, it would be determined on its merit after hearing the parties. The impugned order is arising out of fiscal proceedings thus in no manner would be taken adverse to any party even if mutation is opened in favour of Purshottam. It would remain subject to final outcome of the revenue suits and till then the parties would be guided by the interim order passed in their favour or against them. The impugned order is arising out of fiscal proceedings thus in no manner would be taken adverse to any party even if mutation is opened in favour of Purshottam. It would remain subject to final outcome of the revenue suits and till then the parties would be guided by the interim order passed in their favour or against them. The revenue court would be expected to decide the revenue suits expeditiously and the parties before this court are directed to cooperate with the revenue courts for expeditious disposal of the case.