The power conferred under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is of wide amplitude and is not subject to any limitation period. The Board of Revenue can entertain a reference even where other remedies are available, especially when the attempt is made to grab Government land on the strength of a patently illegal order.

1. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioners appellants seek to question the order dated 23.01.2014 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No.7563/2008) preferred against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') dated 21.01.2008 whereby the Board had accepted the reference made by the Collector, Jaisalmer under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pokaran ('the SDO') in favour of the petitioners-appellants in Revenue Suit No.34/1989.

2. The petitioners-appellants had filed the said revenue suit seeking declaration of khatedari rights over 382 bighas of land comprised in khasra No.527 of Revenue Village Rajmathjai claiming their possession over the same before commencement of the Act of 1955. The SDO decreed the suit to the extent of 304 bighas of land by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994.

3. The reference came to be made against the judgment and decree aforesaid, inter alia, on the ground that khatedari rights had already been conferred upon the petitioners appellants in respect of 136 bighas of land of khasra No.527; and conferment of khatedari rights in respect of further 304 bighas of land on the basis of oral evidence was entirely unjustified. It was also submitted that khasra No.527, in fact, comprised of the land admeasuring 136 bighas and only because of an error on the part of Settlement Department, khasra No.527 was recorded as comprising of 440 bighas of land, contrary to the revenue record.

4. The reference so made was accepted by the Board in its order dated 21.01.2008, inter alia, with the finding that khasra No.527 comprised of 136 bighas of land only and merely for the map prepared by the Settlement Department showing 440 bighas in khasra No.527, khatedari rights could not have been conferred on the appellants. It was also found that the petitioners-appellants had, in fact, sold off 136 bighas of land where for khatedari rights were conferred upon them and then, the suit was filed only in order to take undue advantage of the error of the Settlement Department. The Board, therefore, accepted the reference and set aside the questioned judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994. The attempted challenge by the petitioners-appellants to the judgment and order dated 21.01.2008 has failed with the learned Single Judge endorsing the findings of the Board and also observing that the question of limitation would not come in the way of the Board entertaining the reference where the attempt has been to grab the Government land on the strength of a patently illegal order. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed and held as under:-

"7. Indisputably, on the basis of the cultivatory possession of the petitioners at the time of settlement, the land ad measuring 136 bighas comprising khasra no. 527 was entered in the name of the petitioners. Thereafter, at no point of time, the petitioners claimed khatedari rights over more land on the basis of alleged cultivatory possession. It is a matter of record that 136 bighas land was sold by the petitioners and thereafter, after a lapse of about 30 years, in the year 1989 the petitioners claimed khatedari rights over 382 bighas land alleged to be falling within khasra no. 527. On the basis of the documentary evidence, it is apparent that the petitioners were never in cultivatory possession of the land more than 136 bighas. Merely on account of the error crept in the map prepared by the Settlement Department showing 440 bighas land in khasra no. 527, the undue advantage sought to be claimed by the petitioners without there being any documentary evidence on record regarding their cultivatory possession over the land in question, has rightly been negated by the Board of Revenue. In the considered opinion of this court, the Board of Revenue was absolutely j