ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 16.12.2013 passed in Revision Case No.2420/III/2013 by Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mangal Chamar was owner of land bearing survey No.148 measuring 0.547 Hectare situated in village Karodaha, Teshil Sirmour. Said land was sold to respondents namely Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen by Mangal Chamar. Mangal Chamar died, therefore, Revenue Inspector, Baikunthpur entered the names of legal heirs of Mangal Chamar in revenue records i.e. wife Smt. Durghatiya Bai and daughter Smt. Sathiniya. Appeal was filed against said order of mutation before SDO, Sirmour. SDO, Sirmour remanded the matter back vide its order dated 13.5.1988 in Revenue Case No.247-A6/87-88 for passing fresh order after hearing all the interested parties. Nayab Tehsildar after hearing the parties found that sale-deed was executed on stamp paper of Rs.50/- in the year 1952. Sale-deed was executed in favour of Swami Dayal S/o Ram Prasad. Petitioners are legal heirs of Swami Dayal. By order of Tehsildar dated 25.8.1989 mutation was allowed in name of Swami Dayal S/o Ram Prasad. Appeal was preferred against said order before SDO, which was allowed and matter was again remanded by SDO vide its order dated 30.11.1990 to decide the case on basis of registered sale-deed. Order of SDO was challenged before Commissioner, Rewa. Appeal was allowed vide order dated 25.4.1996 in Appeal No.79/A-6/1990-91. Case was remanded back for exhibiting registered sale-deed and other original documents in case. New mutation case was registered in Tehsil as Case No.11-A 6/1995-96 and Tehsildar allowed mutation vide order dated 18.3.2002 in the name of legal heirs of Swami Dayal namely Devkali, Munishwar, Kamleshwar, Ramkali, Nagendra Kumar and Rajendra Kumar. Again Appeal was preferred before SDO. SDO allowed Appeal vide order dated 19.9.2005 and set aside the order of mutation dated 18/03/2002 and case was again remanded back. Said remand order was challenged before Commissioner in Revision No.93/2005-06. Commissioner again interfered with order of SDO and allowed Revision vide order dated 1.6.2013 and set-aside order of SDO and affirmed the order of Tehsildar, Baikunthpur dated 18.3.2002. Said order passed in Revision dated 1.6.2013 was subject matter of challenge before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue held that sale-deed in favour of Swami Dayal was executed on a plain paper. Said order passed in Revision dated 1.6.2013 was subject matter of challenge before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue held that sale-deed in favour of Swami Dayal was executed on a plain paper. No application for mutation was filed for 16 long years, which makes transaction doubtful. Further legal heirs of deceased Mangal Chamar executed registered sale-deed dated 31.8.1988 in favour of applicants i.e. Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen. Subsequent registered sale-deed was valid document, therefore, mutation ought to have been ordered in name of applicants and not in name of non-applicants before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue allowed Revision and set aside order of Tehsildar dated 18.3.2002 and that of SDO dated 19.9.2005 and that of Upper Commissioner dated 1.6.2013 and directed mutation to be made in name of Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen, who are respondents in this Petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that if application for mutation is not filed for 33 long years will not nullify saledeed of the year 1952 executed in favour of Swami Dayal. Original document was filed before Tehsildar and same was exhibited. Board of Revenue has given incorrect finding that possession is with respondents since execution of sale deed by Durghatiya Bai dated 31.7.1988. Specific finding has been recorded that petitioners are in possession of land in question. In proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. also it was held that petitioners were in possession. It is further submitted that Board of Revenue has ignored the fact that Civil Suit is filed by respondents for declaration, possession and compensation. Said suit was dismissed. Board of Revenue also missed the fact that in application for mutation filed by Swami Dayal, Mangalwa S/o Shivcharan filed reply, in which it has been mentioned that sale-deed was executed in favour of Swami Dayal and he does not have any objection in mutation proceeding. Board of Revenue failed to take into account that sale consideration of property was Rs.50/-, therefore, there was no need to execute registered sale-deed. Board of Revenue had committed an error in interfering in well reasoned order passed by Court below. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supported the order passed by Board of Revenue. It is submitted that no action was taken by purchasers of property to get the mutation done in Revenue records. Board of Revenue had committed an error in interfering in well reasoned order passed by Court below. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supported the order passed by Board of Revenue. It is submitted that no action was taken by purchasers of property to get the mutation done in Revenue records. Commissioner has not committed any error in interfering in the orders passed by Revenue authorities on ground that mutation application was filed after long gap of 33 years. It was further argued that respondents are in possession of land in question, therefore, no error has been committed by Commissioner in interfering with the orders passed by subordinate Revenue Courts. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Following questions arises for adjudication before this Court :- (i) Whether board of revenue has committed an error in holding that sale-deed in favour of petitioners is not a valid document since same has not been registered ? (ii) Whether Commissioner was right in interfering the orders passed by Revenue authorities on ground of long delay of 33 years in filing mutation application by ancestors of petitioners ? (iii) Whether Commissioner was right to interfere in order of authorities and permit mutation on basis of registered sale-deed executed by Smt. Durghatiya Bai W/o Late Mangal Chamar ? 7. On going through facts and circumstances of the case it is found that sale-deed executed by Mangal Chamar in name of Swami Dayal S/o Ram Prasad was for consideration of Rs.50/-, therefore, there was no requirement of registration of sale-deed as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. 8. Durghatiya Bai does not have any right, title or interest to resale the land which has already been sold by deceased Mangal Chamar and no mutation can be done on basis of subsequent registered sale-deed as there was no title or interest with Durghatiya Bai on the date of sale i.e. on 31.8.1988. 9. Board of Revenue has also committed an error in interfering regarding finding of possession. Revenue authorities i.e. Tehsildar, SDO as well as Commissioner and in proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. it was held that petitioners were in possession of land in question. Revisional Court does not have any authority or jurisdiction to interfere into finding of facts. Court of appeal is final authority to decide findings on question of fact. Revenue authorities i.e. Tehsildar, SDO as well as Commissioner and in proceedings under section 145 of Cr.P.C. it was held that petitioners were in possession of land in question. Revisional Court does not have any authority or jurisdiction to interfere into finding of facts. Court of appeal is final authority to decide findings on question of fact. Revisional Court can only interfere on jurisdictional issues or on questions of law and cannot act as an Appellate authority in interfering with finding of facts. Board of Revenue committed an error in holding that respondents are in possession of land in question. Since petitioners are in possession of land after registration of sale-deed and doing agriculture over land, therefore, no error can be found in order passed by Tehsildar, wherein mutation in favour of petitioners was allowed. After sale of land petitioners are in peaceful possession and doing agriculture. Title and possession both are in favour of petitioners, therefore, delay in filing mutation application will not come in there way for getting order of mutation and entries in revenue record. If after sale party is not in possession of land and there is long delay in preferring application for mutation, that delay will come in way of party as sale will become suspicious. 10. In view of above, petition filed by petitioners is allowed and impugned order passed by Board of Revenue dated 16.12.2013 in Revision No.2420/III/2013 is set aside.