Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 31.7.98 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the references made by the Additional Collector, Dungarpur, vide order dated 12.1.98 passed on various applications seeking reference made by Tehsildar, Dungarpur, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners herein by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Dungarpur, stands set aside and consequently, the mutation of the disputed land made in favour of the petitioners is directed to be cancelled.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that land ad measuring 990 bighas 12 biswas comprising khasra No. 3303 situated at village -Punjpur, Tehsildar -Aaspur, District -Dungarpur is recorded as tank -bed of the pond known as 'Punjela Talab'. The petitioners' forefathers and thereafter the petitioners herein used to cultivate the different 'rakbas' forming part of the said land, when the bed of the pond remained free of water i.e. dry. The petitioners claim that the land in question which is a jagir land was in their long continuous cultivatory possession, however, after coming into force of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short "the Act of 1952"), the same was entered in the name of the Government in the revenue record. It is stated that even thereafter, the petitioners were provided the land for cultivation. The petitioners in the respective petitions, claiming themselves to be in cultivatory possession of the land as khatedar filed separate suits for declaration and permanent injunction before the SDO, Dungarpur. Precisely, the case as set out by the petitioners before the SDO was that their land ad measuring 990 bighas 12 biswas has wrongly been recorded as 'bila nam sarkar' in the revenue record and since they are in cultivatory possession of the land as khatedar, they deserve to be declared khatedar tenant of the land. The petitioners prayed for injunction against the State Government not to allot the land in question to anybody else and not to dispossess them from the land in question. The suit was contested by the State by filing the reply thereto taking the stand that the land in question is recorded as 'rohan gair mumkin' in the revenue record and the petitioners never acquired khatedari rights in respect thereof. The State had taken a categorical stand that the petitioners are holding the land as trespasser and not as khatedar tenants. It was contended that the land in question being part of the tank -bed by virtue of provisions of Section 16(ii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act"), no khatedari right accrues in favour of any person on account of alleged land use for casual or occasional cultivation.
(3.) 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 rival submissions, the court arrived at the finding that the petitioners were not khatedar tenant of the land in question and therefore, no khatedari rights can be conferred upon them, however, they were found to be in cultivatory possession of the land. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the respective petitioners were decreed by separate judgment and decree dated 27.12.72, in terms that the petitioners herein are in cultivatory possession of the land but they are not entitled for complete khatedari rights. It was ordered that the petitioners shall pay the full rent for the period the land remains in their cultivatory possession and shall pay one fourth rent when the land remains sub -merged in the water. That apart, the State Government was restrained from allotting the land for cultivation to anybody else under the Rules governing allotment of such land.;