Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Admit.

2. Both the counsel jointly agree that the matter be decided at this stage.

3. With the consent of both the counsel for parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

4. By way of this appeal, the appellant before us seeks to challenge the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12850/2015 whereby writ petition preferred by him challenging the order of Board of Revenue dated 23.07.2015 has been dismissed.

5. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment has quashed the judgment dated 26.09.2012 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority and in favour of the appellant whereby the Revenue Appellate Authority had reached to the conclusion that there was no evidence to hold that appellant had left his village and migrated to Pakistan and thereby directed the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer for recording the land of the appellant in name of the State, as bad in eye of law and further declared the land in Khasra No.340/151 ad measuring 24 Bighas 5 Biswa as that of the appellant in Village Lakhetali, Tehsil Bandra, District Barmer.

6. In brief facts of the case are that petitioner Suleman a permanent resident of Village Lakhetali of Tehsil Bandra District Barmer was having Khatedari land ad measuring 24 Bighas 5 Bisa in Khasra No.304/151 as 1/4rth share of the total land measuring 97 Bighas 4 Biswa being legal heir of Abu Bakar. The Tehsildar moved an application under Section 63 (1) (viii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955) wherein it was stated that the petitioner-appellant had migrated to Pakistan on the ground that Patwari had mentioned in his movement register about the petitioner having gone to Pakistan without passport and illegally. In view thereof, it was stated that right of the land in question of the petitioner-appellant Suleman stands extinguished and the same be now entered in the name of State. The said application came to be contested by one Mohammed S/o Siddiq who had purchased the part of land of the appellant and it was stated that the appellant had not gone to Pakistan but had actually gone to Sri Ganganagar for earning his livelihood.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer recorded evidence and passed ex-parte an order dated 02.08.1975 against the petitioner but at the same time accepted the contention of Mohammed S/o Saddiq regarding purchasing of part of the land. The name of the petitioner-appellant was removed from the revenue records and the name of the State was transposed except to the extent of Mohammed S/o Saddiq’s share.

8. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the decision dated 02.08.1975, he moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC but the same was rejected on 19.04.1989. Thereafter, he filed an appeal against the said order before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who vide its order dated 28.11.1991, allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order dated 02.08.1975 and order dated 19.04.1989 and remanded the matter back to the Sub- Divisional Officer for decision afresh.

9. Upon remand, the Tehsildar vide order dated 18.07.1996 rejected the application filed under Section 63 (1) (viii) of the Act of 1955 holding that there is no documentary proof of the petitioner migrating to Pakistan. Accordingly the land was directed to be re-entered in the name of the petitioner-appellant.

10. The order dated 18.07.1996 was over-turned by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 30.03.2012.

11. An appeal was again filed by the petitioner-appellant before the Revenue Appellate Authority who vide detailed judgment dated 26.09.2012 set aside and restored the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Tehsildar.

12. The Revenue Appellate Authority’s order was set aside by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.07.2015 which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has taken us to the orders passed by the auth