SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) THE defects pointed out by the registry are waived. The matter is heard for admission.
(2.) THIS intra court appeal is directed against order dated 25.5.12 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby a writ petition preferred by the appellant herein against the order dated 29.8.03 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, stands dismissed. The relevant facts in nutshell are that Hemaram and Nemichand, respondent no. 2 & 3 herein, preferred an application before the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), Sojat in the year 1996 under Section 125 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ("the Act") raising a dispute regarding area of Dargah Mastan Shah Baba, comprising khasra no. 311 (old) , (new khasra no.4610). It was prayed that the area of the Dargah deserves to be reduced from 69 air to 42 air, which was wrongly entered in Jamabandi of Samvat 2050 to 2053. The SDO, Sojat directed the Tehsildar, Sojat to inspect the site and submit the report about the land area actually covered by Dargah. After due consideration, SDO arrived at the finding that in Jamabandi of Samvat 1997, the land ad measuring 20 bighas 3 biswas was entered as 'Barani II Gair Mumkin', however, in Jamabandi of Samvat 2030 to 2033 before the settlement, 18 bighas 8 biswas land was entered as 'Barani Gair Mumkin' Government land. It is not in dispute that prior to settlement, the land was not entered in the name of Dargah. However, after the settlement, out of the said 'sivay chak' land, comprising khasra no.311 (new khasra no.4610) 69 air land was entered as 'Gair Mumkin Dargah', whereas the area of Dargah is actually found to be 42 air. Accordingly, SDO vide order dated 9.1.97 directed for correction of the entries and reduced the area of Dargah from 69 air to 42 air.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner,Jodhpur under Section 75 of the Act. The Additional Divisional Commissioner inspected the site and after due consideration of the material on record, affirmed the findings arrived at by the SDO and accordingly, rejected the appeal.;