1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1364/1993, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar, Barmer, while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) issued a notice to Late Teja Ram to show cause as to why he may not be dispossessed from the illegal occupation from the Government land situated in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. Late Teja Ram submitted his reply to the said notice, and simultaneously filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector, Barmer under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter) seeking declaration of Khatedari Rights in respect of 54 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 1468 of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer vide judgment dated 25.03.1983, had dismissed the revenue suit preferred by Late Teja Ram and held that he was having possession over some part of the land in dispute during the period commencing from Samvat Year 2021 to 2026 and thereafter for some period from Samvat Year 2036 to 2039 only. The Assistant Collector, Barmer had further observed that the land, over which Late Teja Ram was having possession, is recorded as 'Bila Kabja Sarkari Padat' in the revenue records and he failed to prove his continuous possession over the said land. The Assistant Collector, Barmer has also doubted the genuineness of the patta produced by Late Teja Ram in support of his claim that the said patta was granted to him by former Jagirdars of Barmer. The Assistant Collector, Barmer also observed that looking to the measurement of the land given in the patta, it cannot be concluded that the same is pertaining to an agricultural land.

2. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector, Barmer on 25.03.1983, Late Teja Ram preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur under Section 223 of the Act of 1955. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984 and revenue suit preferred by the Late Teja Ram was decreed in his favour.

3. Admittedly no appeal or revision was preferred on behalf of the Sate Government under the provisions of the Act of 1955. However, a reference was made by the District Collector, Barmer to the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur on 15.05.1984. The Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 27.05.1992, has accepted the said reference and a review application preferred by Late Teja Ram was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.02.1993.

4. Being aggrieved with the orders passed passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.05.1992 and 15.02.1993, Late Teja Ram preferred the above mentioned writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

5. Assailing the validity of the impugned order dated 24.04.2006, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating that the Board of Revenue had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 on a totally non-existence ground. It is also contended that though the learned Single Judge has clearly accepted the position that in Jagir of Barmer Pargana Malani, the maintenance of revenue record was in most haphazard manner and no record regarding the grant of patta was maintained and but illegally held that the patta issued in favour of petitioner does not inspire confidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there was ample evidence available on record to the effect that patta in favour of Late Teja Ram for the land in question was granted by the then Jagirdar and Jaridar himself deposed before the Assistant Collector, Barmer to substantiate the fact that pa