Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'UIT, Udaipur') against the order dated 22.05.2002 (Annex.10) passed by the Division Bench of Board of Revenue, whereby the Board of Revenue held affirming the findings of revenue courts below that the new Khasra No.365, 366 and 367 of Village Goverdhan Vilas, Tehsil Girwa, District: Udaipur, were not the renumbering of old Khasra No. 259 and such finding arrived at by them on the basis of comparison of the old and new trace maps were correct finding and do not require any interference by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in the second appeal of the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur, wherein UIT, Udaipur claimed that the land in question vested in it, whereas private respondents claimed it to be belonging to them.

2. Being aggrieved by the said finding, the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur has come up before this Court by filing this writ petition.

3. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT, Udaipur urged that land of old Khasra No.256, 257, 258, 259, 271/2, 254, 231/2, 232, 253 and 255 Kita 10 measuring 7 Bigha and 11 Biswa, which were renumbered as Khasra Nos. 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368 Kita 15 Rakba 1.7300 Hectare was there and since 1.7300 Hectare (not mntioning equivalent Bighas and Biswas for no good reason) is not equivalent, but is more than even the claim of the land owners, respondents herein, viz. Kering S/o Amara Bheel and others, which was only for 7 Bigha and 11 Biswa; whereas 1.7300 Hectare would be approximately 9 Bigha and 10 Biswa, which is in excess of the claim of the respondents and, therefore, the comparison, allegedly made by the revenue courts below including the Board of Revenue could not be said to be right. The said trace maps are not placed on record of this Court. He also submitted that even the admission of the respondents themselves before the revenue courts in this regard that upon total comparison of measurements of the concerned Khasra/s in question bearing old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers, there would be such excess of measurement, but such admission of respondents has been read against the petitioner – UIT, Udaipur by the learned Board of Revenue; and wrong findings of the revenue courts below have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue erroneously. He, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition of UIT, Udaipur deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Bhatnagar and Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by three revenue courts below up to the Board of Revenue, do not require any interference by this Court; and since the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur admittedly has no right over the old Khasra No.259, which was renumbered as new Khasra No.353 to 368, as given above, therefore, the concurrent findings of facts do not deserves to be disturbed at the instance of the petitioner- UIT, Udaipur.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents at some length, this Court is of the opinion that there is apparent incongruity and inconsistency in the factual matrix given by the Board of Revenue that upon comparison of the total area of old Khasra numbers and new Khasra numbers (with trace maps), the measurements do not tally and that shows the non-application of mind by the Board of Revenue, while affirming the findings of the revenue courts below.

6. Curiously, and some time, even painfully, this Court has noticed that these kind of discrepancies in the description of the measurements of the agricultural land in the orders passed by the revenue courts including the Board of Revenue, in the absence of a uniform unit of measurement given consistently by the revenue courts and the Board of Revenue, all over the State, this kind of confusion and inconsistencies are bound to arise. These Land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document