Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) THE matter appears to have a checkered history. The land in dispute originally belonged to one Chhotu Singh. The said Chhotu Singh alleged to have given the land to Datar Singh, now represented by the petitioners No. 1 to 6. On the basis of alleged consent given by the said Chhotu Singh mutation was also made in favour of Datar Singh on 19.09.1960. Subsequently, part of the land had been sold by Datar Singh to one Har Sahay, petitioner No. 7 in the present writ petition in the year 1969. Chhotu Singh also died in the year 1967.
(2.) A suit for declaration, ejectment and cancellation of sale was filed by the legal heirs of Chhotu Singh before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Dausa. As many as 10 issues were framed by the trial Court. The petitioners -defendants pleaded that the land in dispute has been given by Chhotu Singh to Datar Singh of his free will and, as per consent given by Chhotu Singh, necessary entries were also made in favour of Datar Singh in the revenue record in the year 1960. Objections in regard to jurisdiction and limitation so far as adverse possession is concerned were also taken. The plea of non -joinder of parties was also taken to the extent that part of land is in possession of a third person who had not been impleaded as party. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, held that the entries in favour of Datar Singh in the year 1960 were wholly without jurisdiction since there was neither any registered sale in favour of Datar Singh nor any written consent by Chhotu Singh. Even the signature of Chhotu Singh had not been taken by the concerned officer while making entries in favour of Datar Singh on the basis of admission of Chhotu Singh. On the contrary, it has been held that Chhotu Singh was not even present at the time of making entries and was in Delhi on that date. While holding the mutation made in favour of Datar Singh to be illegal and without jurisdiction, the sale made in favour of Har Sahay by Datar Singh in the year 1969 was also held to be void and nonest. The plea of non -joinder of party was also not accepted. However, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court only on the ground of jurisdiction, limitation and adverse possession of Datar Singh on the land in question since 1960 on the basis of entries made in revenue record. The order dt. 17.05.1994, passed by the trial Court was further affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 21.01.1995. On a further appeal filed on behalf of the contesting plaintiff -respondents, the Board of Revenue, however, reversed the orders passed by the trial Court as also the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 07.11.1996. The Board of Revenue held that once the point of limitation and jurisdiction been conceded by the defendants, the findings of the trial Court as also the Revenue Appellate Authority were wholly erroneous. The Board further held that even the adverse possession could not have been proved once there has been admission of the defendants -petitioners also that they were in possession over the land in dispute as per consent of the said Chhotu Singh, as such, at the worst, it can only be treated as permissive . The Board of Revenue, while allowing the appeal filed by plaintiff -respondents, directed the concerned authorities to enter the names of legal heirs of Chhotu Singh in the revenue record. The order dt. 07.11.1996, passed by the Board of Revenue, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the contesting respondents have not been able to prove their claim over the land in dispute. Even the adverse possession could not have been challenged by the contesting respondents beyond the period of limitation since, admittedly, the petitioners were in possession as is evident from the entries made in revenue record in the year 1960 itself. It has also been submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is impractical and not executable.;