The main legal point established is that the grant of Gair Khatedari rights as a consequence of a decree in a suit for partitioning ancestral property is valid and does not contravene the Act. Additionally, unreasonable delay in making references under the Act cannot be justified.

Govind Mathur, J.-A suit in the Court of Additional Collector, Kolayat was filed by the petitioner for partitioning and giving separate possession of 60 bighas of land out of ancestral land standing in favour of Shri Ramkaran, elder brother of the petitioner. Shri Ramkaran in the written statement accepted the

tenancy as ancestral property and also agreed for grant of decree for separate possession of 60 bighas of land. Accordingly by Judgment dated 23.01.1989 the suit was decreed and the petitioner was granted Gair Khatedari rights with regard to land of his share.

2. The Deputy Commissioner for Colonisation by an order dated 01.09.1993 made a reference to the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer with regard to Gair Khatedari rights granted to the petitioner on the count that the Assistant Commissioner, Kolayat while granting Gair Khatedari rights to the petitioner by Judgment dated 23.01.1989 acted in contravention of the provisions of Section 15-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which provides that Gair Khatedari rights can be granted only to those persons who had been recorded as in possession of the land prior to samvat 2012 and also to those persons who are not so recorded but established their continuous possession over the land. The petitioner was neither recorded as in possession of the land prior to samvat 2012 nor he established continuous possession over the land.

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the reference petition stating therein that no new right was created in his favour by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolayat by Judgment dated 23.01.1989 as the land in question was already in his possession with his brother Shri Ramkaran being member of a joint Hindu family. The land was recorded in the name of Shri Ramkaran being eldest male member of the family during survey taken up by the Government in samvat 2012. On basis of same survey Gair Khatedari rights were granted to Shri Ramkaran and a pass book as such was issued in his favour. The petitioner and his brother Shri Ramkaran were khatedar tenants of the land prior to samvat 2012 and were in continuous possession of the land. No new Gair Khatedari right was granted by the Assistant Collector, Kolayat by Judgment dated 23.01.1989 but a declaration was made with regard to share of the petitioner in the land and, therefore, the tenancy rights stood granted in favour of Shri Ramkaran long back simply shifted as a consequence of declaration made by Judgment dated 23.01.1989.

4. The Board of Revenue by its Judgment dated 30.11.1993 accepted the reference by holding that the land was recorded in the name of original khatedars from whom the petitioner came into possession of the land on basis of some agreement or understanding, therefore, the grant of khatedari rights by order dated 23.01.1989 runs contrary to the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act. The Board of Revenue accordingly set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner, Kolayat dated 23.01.1989.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by Judgment dated 30.11.1993 preferred a review petition before the Board of Revenue but the same was also dismissed by Judgment dated 17.03.1994. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the Judgment dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue and also to the order dated 17.03.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting review petition preferred by the petitioner.

6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the Board of Revenue erred by holding that Gair Khatedari rights were erroneously granted to the petitioner as the land was recorded in the name of original khatedar from whom the petitioner had come into possession of the land on basis of some agreement or understanding, as such the grant of Gair Khatedari rights contravenes the provisions of Section 15-A of the Act. According to the Counsel for the petitioner the land in question is his ancestral lan