SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and puporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 10.1.1991 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6) be quashed and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3) be restored.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: The Mandir Shri Mahadeoji was tenant of 230 bighas of the agricultural lands known as Dariyanathji -ki -Baori. During settlement operations, that land was entered as tenancy of the Mandir in Samvat year 2014. A copy of the Khatoni prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer during settlement operations is marked as Annex. 1. Subsequently, at the time of the final settlement, Parcha Lagan (Annex. 2) was issued to Mandir Shri Mahadeoji through Kalyan Nath for only 19 bighas and 7 biswas. On 12.5.1971, one Mohan Nath, father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 and husband of petitioner No. 1 submitted an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer requesting him to record 230 bighas of land in favour of Mandir Shri Mahadeoji. After enqiry, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer passed an order on 29.10.1971 and by that order, he recorded 229 bighas of land as Khatedari land of Mandir Mahadeoji. The copy of the order dated 29.10.1971 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer is marked as Annex. 3. The Collector, Jaisalmer being aggrieved of the order dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3) requested the Director of Land Records, Rajasthan, Ajmer to make a referrence under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') lor cancellation of the order dated 29.10.1071 (Annex. 3) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer. The Collector, Jaisalmer allotted 100 acres of land to the Border Security Force through order dated 26.1.1969 (Annex. 5) and the possession of that land was handed over to the Border Security Force on 4.2.1969, but it has been submitted by the petitioners that in the order dated 26.1.1969 (Annex. 5), there was no mention of any of the Khasras. During the pendency of the proceedings, Kalyan Nath and Mohan Nath died and the petitioners are their legal representatives. Pursuant to the request of the Collector, Jaisalmer, reference was made under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer through judgment dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6) accepted the reference and set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3). In this petition, mainly the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6) has been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds and some of them are as follows: (1) That the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3) passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer and furthermore, since an appeal was filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3), therefore, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside that order after 19 years of passing that order. (2) That no doubt there is no limitation period prescribed for exercising jurisdiction under Section 82 of the Act of 1956, but the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time and exercise of jurisdiction after a lapse of 19 years is malafide. (3) That the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue in its judgment dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6) are erroneous one, as they are not based on correct appreciation of facts and law. Thus, it was prayed by the petitioners that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex.6) be set aside and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3) be restored. A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents on 24.8.1995 and in the reply, it was submitted by the respondents that the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6) does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and the reasoning given in that judgment are based on correct appreciation of facts and law and thus, no interference is called for by this Court in writ jurisdiction with the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.8.1990 (Annex. 6). Hence, the writ petition be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
(3.) FROM the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jaisalmer dated 29.10.1971 (Annex. 3), it appears that the Assistant Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that Khasras No. 218, 226, 227, 228 and 229 belonged to the petitioners and for Khasra No. 222, it was stated in that order that it had gone to Railways for which compensation had already been received by the petitioners and, therefore, the Assistant Settlement Officer ordered that Khasras No. 218, 226, 227, 228 and 229 be recorded in the name of Kalyan Nath.;