M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th June, 1998 passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that petitioner was in possession of land, for which, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955) were initiated from time to time. Petitioner's father made an application for regularisation of land in pursuance of the Circular of the Government. The Tehsildar regularised the land in favour of petitioner's father. The petitioner also made an application for regularisation of land, which was accepted by Tehsildar. The order of regularisation of land was interfered by the District Collector on the ground that the land measuring 1000 square yard has already been regularised in favour of petitioner's father thus he was not entitled for regularisation of land. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed, however, order of Revenue Appellate Authority was reversed by the Board of Revenue. It is alleged to be in ignorance of the fact that petitioner was in possession of land separately than his father. In view of above, both were entitled to seek regularisation of land based on their possession. The prayer is to set aside the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner's father and petitioner were jointly in litigation. In fact, the proceeding was initiated against them and was challenged jointly as is coming out from the various orders placed on record. The petitioner has made a reference of document at Schedule C to show his possession in Khasra No.1057 and his father's possession in Khasra No.1056. If it is also taken to be correct then regularisation of land has been made in Khasra No.1057 and in view of above, the petitioner was not further entitled to seek regularisation of land as he was in possession of land in that Khasra only. A reference of joint appeal preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority has also been given to show that petitioner's father and petitioner were throughout contesting the case jointly, however, after getting regularisation of land measuring 1000 square yard, the petitioner started pursuing the case for regularisation of additional land and Tehsildar had accepted the application. The District Collected noticed the aforesaid and regularisation of land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The Board of Revenue has maintained the order passed by the SDO and, thereby, reversed the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Looking to the aforesaid, no interference in the impugned order may be caused.;