Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 10.4.12 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby second appeal preferred by the respondent No. 5 -Safi Mohammed against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.07 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bhilwara in appeal No. 149/03, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.2.03 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), Gulabpura in Revenue Suit No. 84/93, dismissing the suit preferred by the respondent No. 5, has been allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the RAA dated 4.10.07 and judgment and decree dated 19.2.03 passed by the SDO, Gulabpura, the directions have been issued to the Receiver to hand over the possession of the disputed land to the respondent No. 5.
(2.) THE respondent No. 5 preferred a suit under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners herein, in respect of the land ad measuring 64 bighas comprising khasra No. 3077, claiming himself to be recorded khatedar of the land. The suit was contested by the petitioners herein by filing a written statement thereto, stating that they are in possession of the land in question and the petitioners never remained in possession of the land in preceding 20 years. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and parties led their evidence. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the suit preferred by the respondent No. 5 -plaintiff was dismissed by the SDO, Gulabpura vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.03. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the RAA, Bhilwara, which stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.07. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 5 preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which stands allowed in the terms indicated above by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the RAA, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the SDO, Gulabpura. Learned counsel submitted that Board of Revenue has not considered the evidence on record in correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below issue wise after due consideration of the evidence on record has been reversed by the Board of Revenue by merely recording its conclusion without considering the evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Board of Revenue has proceeded to set aside the order taking note of the temporary injunction granted by the court and the order appointing the Receiver of the land which is ex facie erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court has been set aside by the Board of Revenue by passing a cryptic order and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.;