The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession for khatedari rights, the requirement for proper pleading and proof in adverse possession claims, and the lack of jurisdiction for Tehsildars to recommend regularisation of possession over forest land within municipal limits.

1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.5.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.04 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.5.04 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, has been allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 10.5.04 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by the petitioner herein, stands restored.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the State in respect of the land ad measuring 25 big has comprising khasra no.66 situated at Nagaur Road. The petitioner claimed that he is in peaceful possession of the land in question since Samvat 2012 and even the recommendations were made by the competent authority for regularisation of his possession. According to the petitioner, he being in possession of the land since Samvat 2012, was entitled to be declared khatedar tenant by virtue of provisions of Section 13, 15 & 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act").

3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Assistant Collector arrived at the finding that there is no evidence on record showing that the petitioner was in possession of the land since Samvat 2012. It was found that the petitioner encroached upon the land in Samvat 2026 and the proceedings were initiated against him under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short "the Act of 1956"). The Assistant Collector also arrived at the finding that the land in question belongs to Department of Forest and falls within the Municipal limit of Municipal Council, Nagaur and therefore, the Tehsildar, could not have made the recommendations for regularisation of the land in question. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.04.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Jodhpur. The RAA arrived at the finding that on the basis of the oral evidence, the possession of the petitioner over the land in question since Samvat 2012 stands proved and there is no evidence on record to show as to when the petitioner was physically evicted from the land in question. The RAA arrived at the finding that since the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years to the knowledge of the State Government and therefore, he has acquired khatedari rights over the land in question by adverse possession. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the RAA vide order dated 30.12.04 and the suit preferred was decreed as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the RAA as aforesaid, the State preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, which stands allowed vide order impugned. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in holding that the petitioner had not filed any document showing his possession over the land in question since Samvat 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of petitioner's possession over the land in question stands admitted by Tehsildar. Learned counsel submitted that the Forest Department holds 121.19 big has of land, which is already covered by fencing and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in holding that the land occupied by the petitioner is forest land. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question for more than 60 years and thus, cannot be deprived from khatedari rights over the same.

7. On the other hand, the Government counsel while supporting the finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue, contended that there was no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner w