Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 23.1.95 of Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), the judgment and decree dated 12.10.81 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, (SDO), Jodhpur in Revenue Suit No. 26/81, declaring the petitioner as Khatedar tenant of the land ad -measuring 6 bighas 19 biswas, 7 bighas 19 biswas and 2 bighas 8 biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 638, 639 & 640 respectively and issuing permanent injunction against the State Government, stands set aside and the disputed land is directed to be entered as 'Rakba Raj' from very inception.
(2.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner No. 1 - Ramdeen and one Shri Joga Ram, now represented by his legal representatives, the petitioners No. 2/1 & 2/2 herein, preferred a suit under Section 88, 91 and 92A of the Act of 1955 before the SDO, Jodhpur for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that their forefather Shri Nararam S/o Kanaram Jat was in possession of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 638, 639 & 640 ad -measuring 6 bighas 19 biswas, 7 bighas 19 biswas and 2 bighas 8 biswas respectively, situated in Revenue Village -Jodhpur since the time of erstwhile Jodhpur State. On the basis of the long continuous possession, the plaintiffs claimed Khatedari right over the land in question, by virtue of provisions of Section 10 of Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949 ("Act of 1949") and Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The suit was contested by the respondent -State by filing a written statement thereto, taking the stand that the disputed land is recorded in the revenue record as 'Siway Chak' and since the land falls within the municipal limit of Jodhpur City, no Khatedari rights could be conferred upon the plaintiffs. The respondent contended that if any Khatedari right had accrued to the plaintiffs, under the provisions of the Act of 1949, then nothing prevented them from approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of their right. However, the facts regarding continuous possession over the land in question as pleaded by the plaintiffs were not specifically denied.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and parties led their evidence.;