The summary enquiry contemplated under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is to be conducted in a proper manner, affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person alleged to be the trespasser.

1. The appellants-writ-petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.9.2004 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4090/2004 negating their assailment of the order dated 27.8.2004 rendered by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision no. 136/01 affirming the order dated 19.6.2001 of the District Collector, Nagaur in revenue appeal no. 11/2000, seek redress in the instant special appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the appellants-writ-petitioners and Mr. O.P. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The pleaded averments reveal that the respondents no. 4 to 9 did move an application before the Tehsildar, Makrana District Nagaur under section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") contending that they were the recorded khatedars of land measuring 37 bigha 9 biswa included in khasra no. 118 and 180 located at village Devri Tehsil Makrana. Apart from pleading that they were members of the scheduled caste community, they alleged that the appellants-writ-petitioners while they (respondents no. 4 to 9) had been temporarily out of the village had trespassed into and occupied 6 bigha of such land. The respondents no. 4 to 9 therefore sought restoration of the possession of the land involved. On receipt of notice issued by the Tehsildar, Makrana in this regard, the appellants-writ-petitioners submitted their reply asserting inter-alia that they were in possession of the entire 77 bigha of land borne in khasras no. 118 and 180 and that the name of the father of the respondents no. 4 to 9 had been wrongly mentioned in khatedari of 6 bigha therefor. They mentioned as well that meanwhile they had filed a suit for declaration and injunction as well as for correction of the entries in the revenue records before the Additional Collector, Nagaur and that the said proceeding was pending.

4. The Tehsildar, Makrana eventually by his order dated 22.12.1999 rejected the application filed by the respondents no. 4 to 9 being barred by limitation, the same according to the said authority, having been filed after 12 years from the date on which the land involved had been in possession of the appellants-writ-petitioners. Being aggrieved, the respondents no. 4 to 9 preferred revenue appeal no. 11/2000 before the learned District Collector, Nagaur. This forum by its decision dated 19.6.2001 however reversed the verdict of the Tehsildar, Makrana on the ground that the records available established that the respondents no. 4 to 9 were the khatedars in respect of the land involved. It took note of the fact that whereas the respondents no. 4 to 9 alleged that theappellants-writ-petitioners had encroached thereupon, the latter claimed to be in possession thereof from the year 1953 (samvat 2010). That at that point of time (date of decision of the District Collector, Nagaur), the appellants-writ-petitioners were in possession of the land was noted. It was held that though the records disclosed that the respondents no. 4 to 9 were the occupants of the land, the Tehsildar, Makrana had rejected this claim as they did not file alongwith their application an affidavit to this effect. Taking note of the fact that the respondents no. 4 to 9 are members of the scheduled caste and that in terms of the letter and spirit of Section 183-B of the Act in case of their dispossession from the land involved, a summary process ought to be undertaken to restore their possession, it concluded that the application filed by them could not be construed to be barred by time, the same having been presented in the year 1997 immediately after they were ousted. The order of the Tehsildar, Makrana was interfered with.

5. Being dissatisfied with this determination, the appellants-writ-petitioners approached the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer under section 230 of the Act. On a scrutiny of the documents in particular as laid before it, the learned Board of Revenue returned a finding