ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of writ petition (No.5015/13), the petitioner Ganga Ram has questioned legality of judgment dated 4.2.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur vide order dated 23.12.08, the order passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar sanctioning the mutation of the disputed land in the names of the petitioner, has been set aside. That apart, the petitioner has also questioned legality of order dated 10.12.12 of the Board of Revenue, whereby the respondent no.4 herein Kishna Ram, was directed to be impleaded as petitioner no.2 in the reference proceedings. 2. The petitioner Multana Ram, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, has filed the petition (No.2545/13) aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue to the extent of directions issued to the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi and Tehsildar, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint inter alia against him in the concerned Police Station for the alleged fraudulent act. 3. The relevant facts are that Tehsildar, Phalodi made an application under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, stating that the land measuring 132 bighas comprising khasra no.792 min. has been entered in the name of the petitioner vide mutation no.7 attested on 18.10.60, without there being any order of the competent authority allotting the land in his favour. It was contended that the mutation no.7 of village Raneri was sanctioned by Multana Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat fraudulently in favour of the petitioner, wrongly mentioning in column no.16 of the mutation format that Tehsildar, Phalodi has conferred khatedari rights under Section 15 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), whereas, on inquiry being made, it was found that no such order was ever issued by Tehsildar, Phalodi. The Additional Collector on inquiry found the reference legally acceptable and accordingly, referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Act. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Board of Revenue arrived at a categorical finding that the impugned mutation was fraudulently sanctioned by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, in connivance with the petitioner herein. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Board of Revenue arrived at a categorical finding that the impugned mutation was fraudulently sanctioned by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, in connivance with the petitioner herein. Accordingly, while setting aside the mutation, the Tehsildar has been directed to enter the disputed land as sivay chak land classified as gair mumkin magra and further to take possession thereof without any delay. That apart, the directions have also been issued to Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi and Tehsildar, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint in the concerned Police Station for this fraudulent act against all parties involved in the case specially the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, the local Patwari and the petitioner herein. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the reference made for cancellation of mutation sanctioned on 18.10.60 after inordinate delay of 45 years was liable to be rejected on this count alone and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in entertaining the reference made. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", 2015(3) WLN 197 (Raj.) and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr. v. D.Narsingh Rao & Ors.", (2015) 3 SCC 695 . Learned counsel submitted that the mutation dated 18.10.60 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner after due verification made by the Patwari as well as Inspector Land Record. Learned counsel would contend that the mutation entered in revenue record being essentially an official act, is presumed to be done in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that while cancelling the mutation, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to direct dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner is deprived of the land in question at this stage, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as, huge amount has been spent by him in developing the land. Learned counsel submitted that the Board has erred in impleading respondent no.4 Kishna Ram as party respondent in the matter, who has no right or interest in the land in question. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the Board has erred in impleading respondent no.4 Kishna Ram as party respondent in the matter, who has no right or interest in the land in question. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Counsel submitted that it is a case wherein no allotment of the land was ever made in favour of the petitioner by any competent authority yet the land was fraudulently recorded in their names by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar. Learned counsel submitted that the fraud and collusion vitiates the proceedings and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the reference was made after a lapse of 45 years. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the mutation is a fiscal proceeding which does not create any title or right and therefore, in absence of the order of the competent authority allotting the land to the petitioner merely on the basis of the mutation effected, no right is created in his favour and therefore, he cannot be continued in possession and thus, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that without there being an order of the competent authority, conferring the khatedari rights upon the petitioner, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat had no authority whatsoever to sanction the mutation and thus, the order passed in favour of the petitioner sanctioning the mutation is ex facie without jurisdiction and void. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 contended that the reference was made by the Additional Collector inter alia on the application made by the respondent no.4 and therefore, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in impleading him as party to the reference proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner got sanctioned the mutation in his favour without there being an order of the competent authority conferring khatedari rights upon him and thus, the order obtained by the petitioner by committing fraud in connivance with the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and others, has rightly been set aside by the Board of Revenue. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Multana Ram contended that the directions for lodging complaint against the petitioner has been passed by the Board of Revenue without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Multana Ram contended that the directions for lodging complaint against the petitioner has been passed by the Board of Revenue without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that without there being any material on record, the finding recorded regarding fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. It is to be noticed that mutation dated 18.10.60 was sanctioned by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, observing that the petitioner has acquired khatedari rights over the land in question under Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The order passed as aforesaid does not refer to order if any, passed by the competent authority conferring khatedari rights in favour of the petitioner by virtue of provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1955. It has come on record that there is no order passed by any competent authority granting khatedari rights upon the petitioner over the disputed land. Thus, the mutation sanctioned by the Sarpanch on his own recognizing the khatedari rights of the petitioner over the land in question by virtue of provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1955, is ex facie without jurisdiction and void. Suffice it to say that the contention of the petitioner that the mutation was sanctioned by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, after verification of the fact regarding khatedari right being granted by Tehsildar in his favour, is absolutely devoid of any merit. 11. It is well settled that the mutation is only fiscal proceeding and it does not create any right or title and therefore, in absence of any order passed by the competent authority, granting khatedari rights in favour of the petitioner over the land in question, the petitioner cannot claim any right or title over the land in question. It is pertinent to note that under Section 15 of the Act of 1955, merely on the basis of the possession over the land in dispute without determining the crucial question whether the possession was in their capacity as tenant, the question of accrual of khatedari rights in favour of the petitioner does not arise. It is pertinent to note that under Section 15 of the Act of 1955, merely on the basis of the possession over the land in dispute without determining the crucial question whether the possession was in their capacity as tenant, the question of accrual of khatedari rights in favour of the petitioner does not arise. There is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner was occupying the land in question as tenant at the time of commencement of the Act or were admitted as tenant otherwise than sub-tenant or tenant of Khudkhast and therefore, no khatedari rights accrues in his favour under Section 15 of the Act of 1955. In this view of the matter, nothing turns on the question that the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner fraudulently has been set aside after a lapse of 45 years. Moreover, the mutation effected by committing fraud, on the basis of non existing facts, is void ab initio. 12. Admittedly, the reference was made by the Additional Collector to the Board of Revenue inter alia on the application preferred by the respondent no.4 Kishna Ram and therefore, he was proper party in the matter and thus, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in impleading him as party respondent in the matter. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where apparently, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat fraudulently, the directions issued by the Board of Revenue directing Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint, cannot be faulted with. As a matter of fact, it is not even the case set out by the petitioner Multana Ram in the writ petition filed that the mutation was sanctioned by him on the basis of any order passed by the competent authority conferring khatedari rights upon the petitioner Ganga Ram. In any case, the matter with regard to lodging of the complaint if any, for offence alleged to have been committed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and others, must be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law. Needless to say that the complaint if any, filed against the petitioner for alleged fraudulent act, the matter shall be investigated by the police authorities independently. 14. Needless to say that the complaint if any, filed against the petitioner for alleged fraudulent act, the matter shall be investigated by the police authorities independently. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction is made out. 15. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed with the observations as above. No order as to costs.