S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4111/1998. 18.08.2006. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Ravi Kasliwal, for the petitioner. ***** On 18.07.2006, it was brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner Puran had filed two suits for correction of the entries in the revenue record. One suit pertaining to Khasra Nos.299, 63, 507 and 514 came to be decided by the courts below and the judgment of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the petitioner before this court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4112/1998 (Puran Vs. Revenue Board, Ajmer and Others) which came to be decided vide order dated 18.08.2005 in the following terms :- “A suit for declaration and correction in the revenue record was filed by the petitioner before the trial court. The same was decreed by the trial court vide order dated 10.8.1988 on the basis of some compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.5. Subsequently, the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, made a reference under section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Board of Revenue against the compromise decree dated 10.8.1988. It has been alleged that the compromise decree has been obtained just to avoid payment of stamp and registration fees. The Board of Revenue after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while allowing the reference, set aside the decree dated 10.8.1988 passed by the trial court vide order dated 19.6.1997. Hence, the present writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders passed by the courts below. There appears to be contradictory pleas taken by the petitioner in the original suti filed before the trial court as also the compromise between the parties on the basis of which the decree was granted by the trial court. The change of mutation could only be made by the court concerned after verifying the relevant record as also considering the evidence to be submitted by both the sides. Since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the Board of Revenue in passing the impugned order dated 19.6.1997, I find no ground for any further interference of this court in the present matter. However, the petitioner is always free to seek fresh remedy before the appropriate forum for getting the mutation in his name in accordance with law. With the above liberty, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” The present writ petition arises out of the suit in respect of Khasra No.90 which has been decided by the learned courts below in similar terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition being identical, the same may be disposed of in the light of the order passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4112/1998 with identical directions. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition in the light of the above order passed by this court on 18.08.2005 while deciding S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4112/1998 filed by the petitioner. This writ petition is also disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek fresh remedy before the appropriate forum for getting the mutation in his name in accordance with law. Consequently, this writ petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.