Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the order (Annex.10) dated 4.8.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer rejecting as not maintainable, the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order (Annex.9) dated 10.1.2014 issued by the Tehsildar Gudamalani requisitioning Police aid to evict the petitioners from the khatedari land belonging to the respondents in the village Mukhawa.
(2.) Undisputed facts as available on record reveal that the respondents No. 3 to 11 being members of Scheduled Caste community filed a revenue suit under Section 188 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Assistant Collector and prayed that the petitioners herein may be directed not to interfere in the possession and cultivation of the respondents on the khatedari land belonging to them. The suit was dismissed in default. However, later on, an application filed by the respondents before the Tehsildar concerned under Section 183 of the Tenancy Act came to be allowed on 28.7.1993 and it was directed that the petitioners be evicted from the land in question and the possession thereof be restored to the respondents No. 3 to 11 being the khatedars of the land. The said order was challenged by taking recourse of appellate as well as revisional jurisdiction and was affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.6.2001, which has attained finality. The respondents herein being the khatedars of the land in question belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, made several attempts to regain possession of the land but failed in their endeavour. Finally, the Tehsildar issued the communication (Annex.8) dated 10.1.2014 addressed to the SHO Gudamalani Barmer and requisitioned police aid for ousting the petitioners from the khatedari land belonging to the respondents and to restore the possession to the lawful owner. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue by way of a revision which was dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2016 upon which, the instant writ petition has been preferred.
(3.) Shri RJ Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Board of Revenue rejected the revision filed by the petitioners observing that the order dated 10.1.2014 was an administrative order which finding is absolutely perverse and illegal. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Shankarlal Aggarwala & Ors. v. Shankarlal Poddar & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 SC 507 , he urges that the orders in the nature which decide the rights of the parties, have to be termed as judicial orders. As per Shri Punia, the order passed by the Tehsildar requisitioning police aid to evict the petitioners from the disputed land directly infringed the rights of the petitioners and thus, the same has to be qualified as a judicial and not an administrative order. He urged that the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 21.6.2001 declaring the petitioners to be trespassers on the khatedari land owned by the respondents can only be executed by taking recourse to regular execution proceedings under Section 185 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus, as per him, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is grossly illegal and should be quashed and set aside.;