JUDGMENT

1. - Albeit the matter is listed today on an application No. 51862 dated 23.12.2010 filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, but with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being decided finally.

2. By way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioners have sought the following relief:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and call for the entire record relating to the case and after examining the same, the impugned orders dated 10.4.2003 (Annex. 6) and 4.5.2010 (Annex. 8) relating to the Petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside and if this Hon'ble Court is found that this matter should be executed by the Divisional Commissioner after exercising the powers under Section 90-B(7) that may kindly be remitted to the same authority for deciding appeal of the Petitioners within appropriate time fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Contextual facts of the case depict that a suit for partition and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 53 and 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed by the Petitioners in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer-II, Jaipur against Ram Narain, Ram Prasad and others with regard to coparcenery property situated in different khata Nos., as mentioned in the plaint situated in village Keshopura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, in para No. 4 of the said plaint, it is mentioned that the disputed property was partitioned 60 years ago by forefathers of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in terms of an oral family agreement/settlement and on the basis of said oral agreement, the Plaintiffs and Defendants have khatedari rights over the land in question since the 60 years ago and had been using the same accordingly.

4. Pursuant to oral partition Following land came into power and possession of Kajod S/o Nanda :

Khasra No.	Rakba
257	0.12
259	0.87
260	0.60
261	0.50
246	0.62
250	0.11
251	0.22
252	0.54
330 Min.	0.44
247	0.02

Likewise, the land came into power and possession of Ram Sahay S/o Bhorya is thus:

Khasra No.	Rakba
244	0.63
245	0.69
243	1.53
249	0.08
330	0.44
248	0.02

Following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Ganesh :

Khasra No.	Rakba
229	0.07
230	0.57
231	0.16
232	0.09
233	0.01
234	0.82
331	0.91

Following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Bhura:

Khasra No.	Rakba
257	0.08
270	0.08
269	1.12
256	0.03
268	1.01
258	0.44
262	0.41
263	0.59
265	0.57
266	0.01
267	0.09
324	0.21
325	0.23
326	0.08
327	0.03
328	0.43

andAfter oral partition, following land came into power and possession of legal representatives of Shyola:

Khasra No.	Rakba
239	0.09
240	1.36
241	0.01
242	1.80
329	1.05
399/959 ] 400/960 ] 401/965 ]	0.19

Thus, on account of oral partition, co-parcenary property stood divided among the tenants-in-common.

5. The Defendants-Respondent No. 4 to 9 initiated the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Land Revenue Act with regard to their share of land through the answering Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners submitted their objections, which were considered by the Respondent No. 2 and the same were rejected. The Respondent No. 2, having analyzed the matter in detail, vide its order dated 10th April, 2003 resumed the land of Khasra No. 256, 258, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 and 270 in favor of JDA. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10th April, 2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Cum Authorised Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 4th May, 2010. Hence the instant writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 took me through the revenue suit filed by the Petitioners

Click Here to Read the rest of this document