Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against order dt. 18.10.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, allowing an appeal preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against the judgment and order dt. 27.4.04 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Barmer, setting aside the judgment and decree dt. 14.8.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaisalmer in Revenue Suit No. 94/99. The relevant facts are that the petitioners filed a suit under Sec. 88 of the Act seeking declaration that the land measuring 24 bighas comprising khasra No. 60/44 situated at village -Keshuon Ki Basti, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer as their khatedari land. The khatedari rights were claimed by the petitioners on the basis of long and continuous cultivatory possession. The suit was contested by the State by filing a written statement thereto, taking the stand that the petitioners were never in continuous cultivatory possession and they are habitual trespasser. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues and parties led their evidence. In support of the claim, the petitioners placed on record copies of 'khasra parivartansheel', 'girdawari' and 'jamabandi'.
(2.) After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Assistant Collector arrived at the finding that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were in cultivatory possession of the land on the date of commencement of the Act. The Court arrived at the finding that the cultivatory possession of the petitioners over the land in question since Samvat 2012 is not established on the basis of any cogent evidence on record and therefore, they cannot claim khatedari right over the land in question. However, on the basis of material on record, the Court opined that the petitioners remained in possession of the land question in different years as trespasser. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaisalmer vide judgment and decree dt. 14.7.02.
(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the RAA, Barmer. the RAA arrived at the finding that in the district Jaisalmer during the State time, the revenue record was not maintained and therefore, the record prior to settlement is not available but, on the basis of the documents produced, it is established that the petitioners herein were in possession of the land for quite sometime and therefore, there is no reason not to rely upon the oral evidence led on their behalf. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, the suit preferred by the petitioners was decreed as prayed for.;