The grant of khatedari rights requires concrete and reliable evidence, including the production of the original patta or proof of the grant under a specific statute. Mere admission of patta issuance by the State is insufficient.

1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in second appeal preferred by the petitioners under section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter), while challenging the order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the order dated 16.01.1997 passed by SDO, Jodhpur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a revenue suit under section 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, while claiming that father of the petitioners Heer Singh was granted patta by the Erstwhile State of Jodhpur on 11.04.1950 for the land falling in Khasra No. 511 measuring 7/3 bighas and Khasra No. 512 measuring 29 bighas of village Chainpura, Mandore. It was alleged in the suit that the land of Khasra No.511 was recorded in the name of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only while excluding the petitioner No.3 and the land of Khasra No.512 was recorded as Government land, whereas the land of Khasra No.513 was recorded as Rasta.

3. While claiming possession over the land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513, it was alleged that the land of Khasra Nos. 512 and 513 has wrongly been recorded as Government land and Rasta and the name of the petitioner No.3 has not been recorded as Khatedar of land of Khasra No.511, though names of his two brothers have been recorded. It was prayed that the petitioners be declared as Khatedars of land of Khasra Nos.512 and 513 and name of the petitioner No.3 be entered as Khatedar of land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513 and respondents be restrained by way of permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioners from the land of Khasra Nos. 511, 512 and 513 of village Chainpura, Mandore.

4. In the said suit, a reply was filed by the State Government through Tehsildar, Jodhpur, wherein it was stated that patta was issued by the Jodhpur Riyasat in the name of father of the petitioners in respect of lands of Khasra Nos. 511 and 512 but in that patta, lands of Khasra No. 513 was not mentioned. It was also stated in the reply that in the revenue record, the land of Khasra No. 512 measuring 20 bighas is recorded as Siway Chak and the land of Khasra No.513 is recorded as Rasta (Marg) in the revenue records.

5. Before the SDO, Jodhpur, in support of the revenue suit, the petitioners got recorded the statements of four witnesses including the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, however, no evidence was led on behalf of the State Government. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners preferred an application under sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that as the original patta issued in favour of father of the petitioners for the lands of Khasra Nos. 511 and 512 is not available, therefore, the petitioners be allowed to produce the photostat of the said patta in secondary evidence. The said application was rejected by the SDO on 16.08.1996.

6. The learned SDO, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 16.01.1997. Aggrieved with the order of the learned SDO, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, however, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 11.03.1998, against which, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.09.1998 and the review petition preferred by the petitioners had also been rejected by the Board of Revenue on 29.09.1999.

7. Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the courts below, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders passed by the courts below are contrary to the facts and law and suffer from error apparent on the face of the record as the learned courts below ha