1. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.6.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue (`Board'), whereby the revision petitions filed by Madan Lal as adopted son of Ramdayal has been accepted and mutation No.543 & 544 dated 23.2.1994 sanctioned by the Naib Tehsildar, Osian, order dated 31.3.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur and judgment dated 4.1.1996 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur have been set-aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Naib Tehsildar, Osian to decide the mutation proceedings afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. By two registered sale deeds dated 17.2.1994 land out of 27 Bigha 17 Biswa comprising Khasara no.132 was transferred by Amani W/o Ramdayal to petitioner - Khinya Ram (in SBCWP No.4129/1998) and petitioner-Chunni Lal (in SBCWP No.4133/1998) and pursuant to the said sale deeds, the lands were mutated vide mutation No. 543 & 544 in favour of the petitioners. The respondent-Madan Lal claiming himself to be an adopted son of deceased Ramdayal filed appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (`the Act') against the mutation entries.

3. An objection was raised by the petitioners regarding maintainability of the appeals as the appeals were filed by Bhagwana Ram claiming himself to be a power of attorney holder of Smt. Amani, the transferor of the land in question and defendant No.2 in the suit. Bhagwana Ram, in-fact, is a natural father of Madan Lal.

4. The Additional District Collector by its order dated 31.3.1995 came to the conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the appeals and appeals for lack of proper presentation were not maintainable and consequently dismissed the same.

5. Feeling aggrieved, second appeals under Section 76 of the Act were filed by Madan Lal. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by its judgment dated 4.1.1996 upheld the dismissal of the appeals inter-alia holding that though Madan Lal was adopted by Smt. Amani by registered adoption deed, however, as Madan Lal was minor and as the sale has taken place for maintenance of herself and Madan Lal, she was entitled to sale the same and it was not necessary for her to seek consent and also found that the appeals were not properly presented and consequently dismissed the second appeals.

6. Madan Lal filed revision petitions before the Board, the Board by its judgment dated 24.6.1998, inter-alia came to the conclusion that as appellant-Madan Lal was adopted prior to execution of the sale deed, Smt. Amani could not have transferred the land and the said aspect has not been examined by two courts below and passed the order setting aside the mutation entry and the orders passed by both the appellate forums and remanded back the matter to the Naib Tehsildar.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the appeals filed by Bhagwana Ram as power of attorney holder of Smt. Amani were prima facie not maintainable and therefore, the Additional Collector as well as Additional Divisional Commissioner were justified in dismissing the appeals; the Board without even considering the said aspect of the matter has allowed the revision petitions, this order cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the suit for declaration filed by Madan Lal is pending consideration before the competent Revenue Court and the mutation proceedings being summary in nature, the validity of the sale deeds could not be examined while hearing the appeal/revision from mutation proceedings. It is further submitted that the Board was not justified in setting aside the mutation even if it came to the conclusion that the matter requires consideration by the Additional District Collector and therefore, the order passed on revisions cannot be sustained.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Board. It was submitted that the adoption by Smt. Amani of Madan Lal is no more in dispute, inasmuch as, s