Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to challenge judgment dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') and order dated 31.01.1978 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority -I, Jaipur (for short 'the RAA') with the prayer that order dated 08.08.1975 passed by the Land Allotment Advisory Committee, Sub Division, Beawar (for short 'the Land Allotment Advisory Committee') may be upheld/revived and order dated 13.06.1996 allotting the land in dispute to the predecessors in title of the private respondents be declared null and void.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that Tehsildar, Beawar vide order dated 13.06.1963 allotted 3 bighas 9 biswas and 10 biswani land of Khasra No. 364 (New Khasra No. 504/1154) to Baldas S/o. Moti Das, the predecessor in title, whose interest is now represented before this Court by Respondents No. 4/1 to 4/7. Baldas filed revenue suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Beawar (for short 'the SDO'), against Sohan Lal and others. The SDO vide order dated 31.10.1973 dismissed the suit. Baldas then filed appeal before the RAA which vide order dated 13.08.1976 accepted the appeal and declared him khatedar of the aforesaid land and restrained Sohan Lal and others from interfering with his possession. When the aforesaid appeal was pending before the RAA, SDO, on the recommendation of the Land Allotment Advisory Committee, by his order dated 08.08.1975 allotted land measuring 1 bigha and 12 biswa of Khasra No. 456, 13 biswa land of Khasra 457 and 1 bigha and 4 biswa and 10 biswani from Khasra No. 504/1154 by way of regularisation on the basis of old possession. Baldas challenged the aforesaid order before the RAA who vide order dated 31.01.1978 allowed the appeal and set aside the regularisation order. Sohan Lal being aggrieved filed appeal before the Board of Revenue in 1978. During the pendency of the appeal, Baldas died and his legal heirs were not brought on record. Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 27.01.1986 dismissed the appeal as abated. Sohan Lal then filed review petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.1994. He then filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6346/1994 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 25.10.2002 while allowing the writ petition remanded the matter back to Board of Revenue to decide afresh. It is the appeal, which has been decided by the Board of Revenue vide impugned judgment dated 10.05.2013. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue has recorded erroneous finding that old Khasra No. 365 was recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta and regularisation of the same cannot be made. Findings of the Board of Revenue are contradictory. While in para 7 of the impugned judgment it is mentioned that appeal, filed before the RAA by Baldas against the Land Allotment Advisory Committee order dated 08.08.1975 which was allowed vide judgment dated 31.01.1978, was pertaining to Old Khasra No. 364 (New Khasra No. 504/1154) whereas in Para 8 of the said judgment, Board of Revenue had decided the appeal by referring to Khasra No. 365 which has been to be recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. Actually the dispute is with regard to Khasra No. 364 measuring 3 bighas 9 biswas and 10 biswani, which was entered in the Jamabnadi of Samvat Year 2018 to 2021 and 2022 to 2025 as Barani III and Banjar, but yet the Board of Revenue has confused by taking this land as belonging to Khasra No. 365. The Board of Revenue has committed an error in holding that earlier judgment of the RAA dated 13.08.1976 would be operated as res -judicata. Such appeal was decided on the basis of order dated 13.06.1963 which was a nullity and the Board of Revenue erred in holding that the Land Allotment Advisory Committee did not have any evidence to prove long possession of Sohan Lal and regularisation of land in his favour as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue(Allotment of Land and Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970'). It is contended that Sohan Lal was served with many notices under Section 91 of the Revenue Act which signifies his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that this writ petition be allowed and impugned judgments be quashed and set aside.
(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned judgment passed by the Board of Revenue indicates that the Board of Revenue has examined the matter thoroughly especially in the context of judgment dated 31.01.1978 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority by which appeal filed by Baldas against the regularization of the land in favour of Sohan Lal by SDO vide order dated 08.08.1975 has been allowed. SDO vide order dated 08.08.1975, on the recommendation of Land Allotment Advisory Committee regularised his possession whereas the disputed land already stood allotted to Baldas by order of Tehsildar, Beawar dated 13.06.1963 which was part of the land comprising old Khasra No. 364 (New Khasra No. 504/1154). Baldas had actually filed a suit for declaration against Sohan Lal under Sections 88 and 188 of the Act before SDO, Beawar. That suit was dismissed, but he approached the RAA, which vide judgment dated 13.08.1976 decreed the suit and declared Baldas as Khatedar of the aforesaid land and restrained Sohan Lal and others from interfering with his possession. The Board of Revenue was fully justified in holding that in the face of this judgment dated 13.08.1976 which attained finality, the disputed land could not be regularised in favour of Sohan Lal inasmuch as there was no sufficient evidence before the Land Allotment Advisory Committee to show that Sohan Lal had been having possession of the disputed land for a very long time. Board of Revenue has held that regularisation of the land in favour of Sohan Lal on the basis of old possession could be made only as per the conditions enumerated in Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970 and one of the conditions thereof is that alleged trespasser should be landless farmer and the land so allotted does not fall within the categories as enumerated in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1970. Besides, land of Khasra No. 365 which was adjoining to land of Khasra No. 364 was the land recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta. In fact, the land which was allotted to Sohan Lal was not available for allotment because it already stood allotted to Baldas. The Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal.;