Opportunity of hearing to the affected party in mutation entry process is essential, and consequential actions should be considered in light of the underlying legal decrees.

1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Single Bench of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissing Revision Petition No. 63/2000/LR/Jodhpur, Smt. Sundar Devi and ors. v. Sanwalram and anr. filed by the petitioner in Camp sitting at Jodhpur at admission stage whereby the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue while dealing with the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur deciding First Mutation Appeal No. 3/1996, UIT v. LRs. of Durga Ram and ors. under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 whereby the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur set aside the mutation in favour of the revision petitioner in pursuance of decree in favour of revision petitioners dated 30.7.1988 deciding Revenue Declaration suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which was filed on 23.9.1985 for declaration and injunction against the State Government.

2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner held that Tehildar while entering mutation in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of decree of the Revenue Court dated 30.7.1988 did not give an opportunity of hearing to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur in whose favour the land in question was set apart for development by the State Government vide order dated 28.3.1988. It may be pointed out here that the said order dated 28.3.1988 has never been placed on record before the Revenue Courts or the Authorities below including the Board of Revenue and even this Court, in any of the proceedings by the State or the UIT, Jodhpur in this case. The Additional Divisional Commissioner however, held that since the Tehsildar recorded mutation in favour of the petitioners without giving an opportunity of hearing to the UIT, Jodhpur, the order of the Tehsildar for mutation deserves to be quashed and thus, the appeal filed by the UIT came to be allowed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner against which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which came to be dismissed in the camp sitting by the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 8.1.2001.

3. The learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners and upholding the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 5.8.2000 even set aside the decree dated 30.7.1988 in Revenue Suit No.5/1988 in favour of the present petitioners against which even the appeal filed by the UIT, namely, Appeal No.4/1989 was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 27.9.1993 and even the revision petition by the Revenue Board came to be dismissed on 27.9.2000 and while setting aside the decree itself, the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue set aside the mutation entry No.683 dated 24.11.1995 which was set aside by the Additional Divisional Commissioner by order dated 5.8.2000.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 8.1.2001, the petitioner preferred this writ petition before this Court on 1.11.2001.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.L.R.Mehta submitted that the learned Single Member while dealing with the revision petition filed by the present petitioner was not even seized of any challenge to the decree dated 30.7.1988 in the Revenue Suit No.5/1988, which decree had become final with the dismissal of appeal filed by the UIT, Jodhpur itself on 27.9.1993 and the Review petition against that also came to be dismissed on 27.9.2000 and therefore, while dealing with the revision petition filed against the impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner only dealing with the mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar in pursuance of decree, the learned Single Member could not have set aside the decree itself.

7. He also submitted that it was for the State Government to place the documents relating