1. - This second appeal is against the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 27.2.2002 and dismissal of the first appeal by the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Bangor Charitable Trust, Didwana through its representative, filed suit for declaration and injunction that the land of Khasra No.2163 measuring 87 bighas and khasara No.2165 measuring 106 bighas 18 biswas be declared pasture-land. The plaintiff further sought relief of injunction against the respondents that the land in question may not be put to any other use and may not be allotted to any body.

3. The defendants submitted written statement and stated that the land in question has already been allotted to the defendant-Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short the 'RIICO') by the order of the State Government on payment of market value of the land which the RIICO deposited with the State on 31.3.1997 vide Receipt No.51. The possession of the land has already been delivered to the defendant-respondent RIICO by the revenue authorities. It is also submitted that the land was never recorded in the name of the plaintiff nor it was allotted as pasture-land.

4. The issues were framed and after trial, the trial court held that the plaintiff set-up the case that the suit property was allotted to Seth Mangni Ram Bangor on 15.6.1944 but in evidence the plaintiff's witness PW-1 stated that the land was given to the Trust. Thereby, the plaintiff's own witness contradicted the fact pleaded by the plaintiff that the land was allotted to Seth Mangni Ram Bangor. The trial court also considered the documents Ex.4, Ex.5 and Ex.7 which were produced by the plaintiff to prove their right and interest in the property of the Trust and thereafter held that by these documents only it is provided that the land in question will be used for grazing and in none of the document it is mentioned that the land is allotted to either Seth Mangni Ram Bangor or to the plaintiff-Trust. The trial court also held that from combine reading of Ex.5 and Ex.7, it appears that Seth Mangni Ram Bangor requested for reserving some land for pasture purpose and there is clear mention that the land shall be managed by the Panchayats. It appears that reference of more than one Panchayat in managing the land is because of the reason that the total land involved is 20,000 bighas. The trial court also held that from the evidence produced by the plaintiff, it is not proved that the land in question was in plaintiff's possession or it was used for pasture purpose. Therefore, in substance, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's locus standi in maintaining the suit. The trial court further held that the District Collector had power to set apart the land and allot for non-agricultural purpose. The plaintiff did not choose to challenge the order of the land allotment which was passed in favour of RIICO nor sought relief for possession, therefore, on this ground also, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2002 and the appellate court confirmed the finding of fact recorded by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2002.

5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant placed on record the documents Ex.4, Ex.5 and Ex.7 as well as placed on record the copies of the revenue record which clearly established that the land in question is Gochar land and is in possession of the plaintiff. The trial court misread the documents Ex.4, Ex.5 and Ex.7 as well as the relevant revenue record. It is submitted that once the land has been recorded as Gochar land in revenue record then it was the duty of the defendants to prove the validity and legality of their allotment order. Once it is proved that the land is Gochar land then the allotment order passed in favour of the defendant RIICO is