Sangeet Lodha, J.

By way of writ petition (No.5015/13), the petitioner Ganga Ram has questioned legality of judgment dated 4.2.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the Additional Collector-II, Jodhpur vide order dated 23.12.08, the order passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar sanctioning the mutation of the disputed land in the names of the petitioner, has been set aside. That apart, the petitioner has also questioned legality of order dated 10.12.12 of the Board of Revenue, whereby the respondent no.4 herein Kishna Ram, was directed to be impleaded as petitioner no.2 in the reference proceedings.

2. The petitioner Multana Ram, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, has filed the petition (No.2545/13) aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue to the extent of directions issued to the Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi and Tehsildar, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint inter alia against him in the concerned Police Station for the alleged fraudulent act.

3. The relevant facts are that Tehsildar, Phalodi made an application under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") before the Additional Collector (Second), Jodhpur, stating that the land measuring 132 bighas comprising khasra no.792 min. has been entered in the name of the petitioner vide mutation no.7 attested on 18.10.60, without there being any order of the competent authority allotting the land in his favour. It was contended that the mutation no.7 of village Raneri was sanctioned by Multana Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat fraudulently in favour of the petitioner, wrongly mentioning in column no.16 of the mutation format that Tehsildar, Phalodi has conferred khatedari rights under Section 15 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), whereas, on inquiry being made, it was found that no such order was ever issued by Tehsildar, Phalodi. The Additional Collector on inquiry found the reference legally acceptable and accordingly, referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Act.

4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Board of Revenue arrived at a categorical finding that the impugned mutation was fraudulently sanctioned by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, in connivance with the petitioner herein. Accordingly, while setting aside the mutation, the Tehsildar has been directed to enter the disputed land as sivay chak land classified as gair mumkin magra and further to take possession thereof without any delay. That apart, the directions have also been issued to Sub Divisional Officer, Phalodi and Tehsildar, Phalodi to lodge a police complaint in the concerned Police Station for this fraudulent act against all parties involved in the case specially the then Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kanasar, the local Patwari and the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the reference made for cancellation of mutation sanctioned on 18.10.60 after inordinate delay of 45 years was liable to be rejected on this count alone and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in entertaining the reference made. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in the matter of "Tara & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", 2015(3) WLN 197 (Raj.) and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & Anr. v. D.Narsingh Rao & Ors.", (2015) 3 SCC 695. Learned counsel submitted that the mutation dated 18.10.60 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner after due verification made by the Patwari as well as Inspector Land Record. Learned counsel would contend that the mutation entered in revenue record being essentially an official act, is presumed to be done in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that while cancelling the mutation, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to direct disposs