1. - The petitioners have filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2013 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue, Ajmer upholding the proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') for ejecting and removing the encroachment made by the petitioners on the land in question measuring 2 Bighas and 5 Biswas in Khasra No.206 situated in Village-Gunjol, Tehsil-Nathdwara.

2. The Tehsildar, Nathdwara, in the first instance vide order Annex.1 dated 27.08.2002, had held that the petitioners had encroached over the said land in question and the land in question was a 'Pasture Land' and the petitioner's father being a Government servant had fraudulently got entered the names of his sons, namely, Devendra Singh and Hukam Singh (petitioners herein) in the revenue record and had encroached over the land in question. The case of the petitioners under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1970') which provides for allotment of land to the trespassers, cannot be considered favourably in his case and on the other hand, for the misuse of powers being a Government servant, the petitioner deserved to be punished suitably.

3. The said order dated 27.08.2002 of the Tehsil, Nathdwara, was challenged by the petitioners by way of appeal before the learned District Collector, Rajsamand, which Revenue Appeal No.26/2002 also came to be dismissed by the learned District Collector vide Annex.2 order dated 22.10.2002, who also held that the appellants being Government servant in the "Samvat Year" 2059 committing fraud in collusion with the revenue authorities, namely, the Patwari, got the names of his sons surreptitiously entered in the revenue record, therefore, such encroachment cannot be regularised invoking the Rule 20 aforesaid. The District Collector, however, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners held that the petitioners will not be sent to civil jail as held by the Tehsildar. The second appeal u/s 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, viz. Appeal No.186/02, also came to be dismissed by the learned R.A.A., Udaipur vide the order dated 18.11.2006 (Annex.3). The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned R.A.A., Udaipur is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

geus mHk;i{kksa dh cgl ij euu fd;k rFkk vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk dyDVj jktleUn ,oa rglhynkj ukFk}kjk dh i=koyh ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k nLrkosth lk{;ksa dk xEHkhjrk iwoZ voyksdu fd;kA mHk;i{kh; vfHkHkk"kdksa dh cgl ij Hkh euu fd;kA

"vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk dysDVj] jktleUn us vius fu.kZ; esa ;g vafdr fd;k vihyk.V dk dCtk dc ls gS\ vihyk.V us dCts dh iqf"V esa dksbZ izek.k izFke n`"V;k esjs le{k izLrqr ugha fd;s gSA ln~Hkkoh Hkwfeghu d`"kd ds ckjs esa gh fdlh vfrdze.k dks fujLr djus ds fy, izFke n`"V;k fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA----xr o"kZ rd ;g vfrdze.k vihyk.V ds firk Jh t;flag ds uke ij ntZ Fkk] tks fd jkT; deZpkjh gSA fdlh Hkh jkT; deZpkjh }kjk ljdkjh Hkwfe ij fd;k x;k vfrdze.k jkt0 jkT; vkpj.k fu;eksa ds foijhr vkrk gS] vr% xr o"kZ rd vihyk.V ds firk ds uke ij i0 14 esa vafdr vfrdze.k dh vof/k dks fu;eu gsrq Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA"

vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk dyDVj] jktleUn us vius fu.kZ; esa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij vihyk.V dk vfrdze.k izFke n`"V;k dkfct fu;eu ugha gSA ijUrq vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk i'pkr~orhZ vfrdze.k ds fcUnq ij vihyk.V ds fo:) ,d ekg ds flfoy dkjkokl dk ikfjr n.Mkns'k] fof/kor nLrkost ,oa lk{; ds vHkko esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksdj U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA

ge vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk dyDVj] jktleUn ds mDr foospu ls iw.kZ lger gSa vkSj mlesa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi djuk vko';d ugha le>rs gSA

vr% mijksDr foospu vuqlkj vihy vihyk.V [kkfjt dh tkdj vf/kuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk dyDVj jktleUn dk fu.kZ; fnukad 22-10-2002 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gS rFkk rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-8-2002 esa ,d e