Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Since both the aforesaid writ petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 30.12.1983, whereby the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred by the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Board of Revenue dated 30th December, 1983, whereby the appeals filed by the respondents against the decision of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority decreeing the suit filed by the State of Rajasthan and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28th March, 1972, passed by the learned Tribunal Court dismissing the suit filed by the State, was allowed by the learned Board of Revenue and suit filed by the State of Rajasthan came to be dismissed.

3. The suit came to be filed in respect of the land, which was purchased by one Banarsidas on 6th January, 1949 from the erstwhile Biswedar. The predecessor-in-title of the respondent Ramnarain purchased the land by registered sale-deed on 19th February, 1955 from Banarsidas. Thereafter, mutation Nos. 195 and 125 were opened in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Ramnarain on 5th September, 1956. It also appears from the record that the nature of the land was also altered to Abadi, as was submitted by the petitioner, which is evident from the Annexure-2 the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, filed by the petitioner.

4. The State Government was of view that as a result of the coming into force of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1959'), the said land vested with the State and therefore, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents Ramnarain was a trespasser. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, were initiated against Ramnarain in respect of land in dispute. The said proceedings were dropped by the Tehsildar vide order dated 28th December, 1965. In the meanwhile, the application submitted by the deceased Ramnarain, the predecessor-in-title for the respondent, for recording their names in the settlement operation came to be allowed under order of the Settlement Officer dated 15th January, 1965 and the name of Ramnarain came to be entered in the revenue records, as a result of the aforesaid order dated 15th January, 1965. It appears that as a result of the passing of the order dated 15th January, 1965. the Tehsildar dropped the proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 for eviction of the trespasser by his order dated 28th December, 1965, which has been filed on record as Annexure-R/2. The said order Annexure-R/2 reads as follows:-

^^vkt ;g i=kfn is'k gq, odhy xSj lk;y gkftj gSA mlus vkt gesa uDy QSlyk lsfVyesUV 29-5-1963 eqdkfgtk fdjk;k ftlls izdV gS fd vkjkth [kljk uEcj 300 jdck 3 ch?kk fcLok ekStk eqaxldk esa Jh jkeukjk;.k ds [kkrsnkjh dh gS ftlesa pkj nhokjh igys ls cuh gqbZ gSA geus fely ij xkSj fd;k eqf[;flag okds vkn ;g fd vkjkth [kljk uEcj 300 jdck 3 ch?kk esa ls jkeukjk;.k iq= v;ks/;k izlkn oS'; edku rkehj dj jgk gSA og Hkwfe E;qfufliy ,fj;k ds ckgj gSA bl ij xSj lk;y dk uksfVl tsj nQk 91 ys.M jsosU;w ,DV fn;k x;k tokc uksfVl esa xSj lk;y us tkfgj fd;k gS fd vkjkth eqruktk esjh [kkrsnkjh dh gSA blesa pkj nhokjh igys dh gh cuh gqbZ gS og xzke iapk;r dh eatwjh ls cukbZ FkhA vkids uksfVl feyus ds ckn dksbZ rkehj ugha dh gS] D;ksafd lsfVesUV us ;g nqdkus ds [kkrsnkj gdwd xSj lk;y dks fn;s gSa vkSj nqdku gksuk igys dk cuk iapk;r us Hkh viuh eatwjh esa tkfgj fd;k gS ,slh lwjr esa tc eatwjh iapk;r us dh gS og fu;e fo:) fdl xSj lk;y ds uksfVl ds ckn rkehj dhA tks vgkrk eqruktk esa igys gh gksuk xSj lk;y o iapk;r us Hkh izdV fd;k fd ,slh lwjt esa gekjh utnhd bu i=kfn esa vkxkeh fdlh dk;Zokgh dh t:jr ugha gSA i=kfn lekIr fd;s tkosaA uksfVl ealw[k fd;s tkosaA fely QSlyk esa 'kqekj gksdj uEcj ls de gksA ckn rdehy tkCrk i=kfn nkf[kr nrj gksA**

Click Here to Read the rest of this document