JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in REVISION/L.R./2956/2016/DISTRICT PALI (Annexure-13), may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (c) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that one Smt. Mohan Kanwar W/o of Late Sagat Singh preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Pali against the respondent no.5 to 18, stating therein that a land comprising khasra nos. 1869, 2264 and 2265 situated in Village Gundoj, Tehsil Pali was possession of the one Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and after the death of Panney Singh, name of Moti Singh (father of respondents no.5 to 8) and Kalyan Singh (father of respondents no.9 to 11) were shown as legal representatives of Late Panney Singh, in respect of the land in question, whereupon, the land in question registered in the name of Moti Singh and Kalyan Singh and mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976 was recorded in the revenue records. 2.1 The learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 25.06.2012 has condoned the delay of 31 years in filing the appeal and while cancelling the mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976 in the revenue records, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar, Pali, with a direction to make an enquiry regarding the legal representatives of Late Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and thereafter, pass fresh orders after giving proper opportunity of the hearing to all the concerned parties. 898 dated 07.01.1976 in the revenue records, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar, Pali, with a direction to make an enquiry regarding the legal representatives of Late Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and thereafter, pass fresh orders after giving proper opportunity of the hearing to all the concerned parties. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2012, the respondent no.2 & 3, claiming themselves to be the bonafide purchasers of the land in question, filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment therein as party, which was was allowed on 15.10.2015. Thereafter, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 11.04.2016 allowed the appeal and quashed the aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Collector. 2.3. Against the aforementioned order dated 11.04.2016, the respondent no.1 filed a revision petition under Section 84 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereupon the learned BoR vide order dated 24.08.2023 allowed the said revision and quashed the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, and further directed the Tehsidar, Pali to comply with the aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012, except in regard to the land in respect whereof a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation entry was challenged after a gross delay of 31 years and the same was condoned by the learned Additional District Collector, which is highly illegal and unjustified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of challenging the mutation entry in question, Mohan Kanwar was very well aware about the mutation in question because she executed an alleged Will in favour of the respondent no.1 on 01.10.2007, wherein it was clearly stated that she sold the land, which was subject matter of the mutation in question. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land in question on basis of the registered sale deed and the said sale deed was never challenged, and therefore, the impugned order is highly illegal and unjustified in law. 4. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the land in question on basis of the registered sale deed and the said sale deed was never challenged, and therefore, the impugned order is highly illegal and unjustified in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the mutation entry no. 898 was wrongly recorded in the name of Moti Singh (Father of respondent no. 5 to 8) and Kalyan Singh (Father of respondent no. 9 to 11). It was further submitted that the said mutation entry was made without any resolution of the gram panchayat. 4.1. It was further submitted that after the death of Mohan Kanwar W/o Sagat Singh (Mother of the respondent no.1), the respondent no.1 became the first heir of the land in question as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is justified in law. 4.2. It was also submitted that the learned revenue courts below i.e. the learned Additional District Collector & SDO as well as the learned BoR quashed the mutation entry in question after duly considering all the relevant aspects of the case as well as after due appreciation of the material placed on record before them. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that Smt Mohan Kanwar W/o Late Sagat Singh filed the aforementioned appeal before the learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer against the respondent no.5 to 18 against the alleged illegal and forged mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976, which was recorded in the revenue records, whereupon the mutation entry was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar as mentioned above, vide order dated 25.06.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.2 & 3 filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, which was allowed on 11.04.2016 and the order dated 25.06.2012 was quashed. 6.1 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2016, the respondent no.1 filed a revision petition before learned BoR and the same was allowed on 24.08.2023, while quashing the order dated 11.04.2016. 7. 6.1 Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2016, the respondent no.1 filed a revision petition before learned BoR and the same was allowed on 24.08.2023, while quashing the order dated 11.04.2016. 7. This Court further observes that during pendency of the aforesaid revision petition, a compromise was arrived between the respondent no.1-Rasal Kanwar and respondent no.3-Bhanwar Singh S/o Gopal Singh, and the same was notarized 09.04.2021 and filed before the learned BoR. Relevant portion of the said compromise which was recorded in the impugned order of the learned BoR is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk lgou ls muds [kljk uacj 1869@1 ds ckcr~ laHkkxh; vk;qDr tks/kiqj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh vc mDr [kljk uacj ckcr~ dksbZ fookn 'ks"k ugha gS blfy;s ;fn lgk;d dysDVj ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] ikyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25-06-2012 ds fu.kZ; dks ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gS rks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 dks dksbZ ,srjkt ugha gS A vkSj laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-04-2016 dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS D;ksafd mDr ukekarj.k ckcr~ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 ds [kljk uacj 1869@1 ds ckcr~ laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh blfy;s vc fuxjkuh ds ek/;e ls laHkkxh; vk;qDr] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 11-04-2016 dks fujLr djrs gq, lgk;d dysDVj ,oa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] ikyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 25&06&2012 dks cgky j[kk tkosA^^ 8. This Court also observes that the learned BoR in the impugned order clearly stated that the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for enquiry regarding the legal heirs qua the land in question, which is justified in law. This Court further observes that in a case like the present one where the actual position cannot be duly ascertained and determined, unless there is an enquiry, then the Tehsildar is the competent authority to make an enquiry regarding the legal heirs in question and the mutation entry in question, in accordance with law. 9. This Court also observes that there are findings of the learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer as well as the learned BoR, which do not require any interference, and thus, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned BoR. 10. 9. This Court also observes that there are findings of the learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer as well as the learned BoR, which do not require any interference, and thus, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned BoR. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.