The Board of Revenue has the power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, even while dealing with the reference application under Section 232 of the Act, and can set aside the decree if it comes to such a conclusion.

1. - This batch of 32 writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, illustratively, are taken from C.W. No. 6898 of 2006, Amar Singh Jat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. .

2. The petitioners, before this Court, in this batch of writ petitions, are aggrieved by the order of Board of Revenue dated 5.5.2005 passed in Reference Case No. 6/93/TA/Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Giri (deceased through LR's Dayal Giri , whereby the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue (Sh. B.L. Meena) decided the reference/revision under Sections 232 and 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955) against the judgment and decree of S.D.O. Nohar dated 26.2.1973 passed in Revenue Suit No. 22 of 1968, Krishna Giri disciple of Takhat Giri, by caste Swami, Resident of Nohar v. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Revenue, Nohar .

3. The brief facts for disposal of the present batch of writ petitions to the extent relevant are as under.

4. The disputed land in question ad-measuring 2375 bigha and 16 biswa of land situated in Nohar, District Hanumangarh, was earlier "Jagir" land, which was resumed under the provisions of Jagir Resumption Act, 1952, and in respect of that land, several litigations cropped up between various parties even up to this Court by way of writ petition being D.B.C.W.P. No. 1202 of 1982, State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Nand Giri & Ors. . The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment dated 13.11.1991, which order is quoted hereinafter in extenso by which the Division Bench of this Court while remanding the matter back to the learned Board of Revenue, on the premise that even though prior to 1981, the Board of Revenue had no power to set aside the decree" of the Revenue Court while exercising its reference jurisdiction under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, but after amendment of 1981 writ the inclusion of the word "decree" in Section 232, by way of amendment dated 5.10.1981, it has got such powers to set aside even the 'decree' of Revenue Courts also in reference jurisdiction under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. But, even prior to the amendment, the Board had the revisional powers under Section 221 of the said Act and thereby even while dealing with the reference application under Section 232 of the Act, it could exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 221 of the said Act and set aside the decree if it came to such a conclusion. The Division Bench, therefore, held that in view of facts and circumstances of the present case, it ought to have disposed of the case exercising its power under Section 221 read with Section 232 of the Act of 1955 and dealt with the case on merits of the decree impugned before it, which it had earlier refused to do so vide its impugned orders dated 28.7.1991 and 11.7.1979.

5. In pursuance of the said order of remand by the Division Bench of this Court, the Single Member of Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 and while accepting the reference application made by the Collector, and it has set aside the decree of learned S.D.O., Nohar dated 26.2.1973 and also subsequent order dated 17.9.2002 for mutation entries, and directed the revenue authorities to record the entire land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswas in the name of State Government. The said order of learned Single Member of Board of Revenue has been assailed in the present batch of writ petitions, both by the State Government (Revenue Department), Municipal Council, Nohar and the private parties, who claimed that in the original decree dated 26.2.1973, the learned S.D.O., Nohar had himself directed that 146 bighas of land in Khasra No. 793/733 out of total 2375 bighas and 16 biswas of land, was to be recorded in the name of State Government; whereas only remaining land ad-measuring 2173 bigha if land, was to be recorded in