Khatedari rights cannot be conferred without following the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Any order conferring khatedari rights without jurisdiction is null and void.

1. - This petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 25.01.2010, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, (hereinafter “the Board”) accepting the reference made by the Collector, Bharatpur under Section 82 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter “the Act of 1956”) and directing that mutation Nos.717, 724, 800 & 828 as also 1602 & 1604 be set aside and 46 bigha agricultural land in khasra No.515, Kasba Bharatpur be reverted in revenue records as Sawai Chak (Government Land).

2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Board is vitiated for having recorded that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners i.e. Samanta and Chiranji were allotted the land in dispute temporarily for a period of one year in Samvat 2014 i.e. 1957. He submits that even though no Patta of allotment was filed before the Collector, Bharatpur, yet under Section 140 of the Act of 1956, the entries in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners in the khasra girdawari 2010-14 and 2014-2018 ought to have been presumed to be true unless the contrary was proved and then possession taken as proof of khatedari rights. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the mere failure of the petitioners to file any allotment letter in favour of their predecessors in interest or an order of a competent court or of the authority under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter “the Act of 1955”) was of no consequence. It is submitted that the petitioners' predecessors in interest, Samanta and Chiranji, were entitled to khatedari by operation of Section 15 of the Act of 1955 having been in possession of the disputed land in Samvat 2010 and in 2012 when the Act of 1955 came into force. These aspects of the matter having been overlooked by the Collector in his opinion on the Tehsildar's reference and the Board in its judgment dated 25.01.2010, the judgment deserves to be set aside and the mutations in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records evidencing their khatedari sustained.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned dated 25.01.2010, passed by the Board.

4. Section 15 of the Act of 1955” deals with “khatedar tenants” and details those entitled to conferment of such right. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) khatedari rights shall not accrue to any person to whom land had been let out before the commencement of the Act of 1955 by the State Government inter alia under some special order and subject to some specified conditions. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 provides that any person referred to in sub-section (2) may within three years from the date of commencement of the Act of 1955 and on payment of the court-fee of twenty five naye paise apply to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction praying for a declaration that he has acquired khatedari right under sub-section (1) in the land held by him. Sub-section (4) of Section 15 details the grounds on which the application under sub-section (3) can be made. Subsection (5) of Section 15 thereafter provides that the Assistant Collector shall upon the presentation of an application under sub-section (3) make inquiry in the prescribed manner and afford reasonable opportunity to the applicant of being heard and shall, if he does not reject the application, allow the application.

5. From the facts on record, it is clear that khasra No.515 admeasuring 46 bighas in Kasba Bharatpur at the time of the commencement of the Act of 1955 (Samvat 2012) was recorded as Sawai Chak (Government Land). It is also established from the facts of the case that the aforesaid land was at no point of time allotted to any person. Nor in respect thereof any person obtain a declaration of khatedari rights by a competent court.

6. It is also an admitted fact in the present case that no application to the Assistant Collector was made by the petitioners' pre