SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. This case has a chequered history, however to examine the contentions, it would be appropriate to first mention the facts relating to the revenue record of the land in question as available on record. Admittedly, the land situate in Village Manpur Devri alias Meenawala Tehsil, Jaipur, bearing khasra No.24 admeasuring 1 bigha 3 biswas, khasra No.25 admeasuring 1 bigha 8 biswas, khasra No.26 admeasuring 9 biswas, khasra No.27 admeasruing 12 bigha 2 biswas, khasra No.29 admeasuring 5 bigha 6 biswas, khasra No.32 1 bigha 8 biswas, khasra No.33, admeasruing 3 biswas, khasra No.36, 9 biswas, khasra no.32/140 1 biswa i.e. in all 22 bighas 9 biswas was in the khatedari of one Nand Rani widow of Govind Singh. However, the names came to be entered of Moti, Govinda and Chothu sons of Bhorya as khatedari tenants vide mutation No.10 and the name of widow was deleted. When the said three persons transferred the piece of land, litigation ensued.

2. The Tehsildar while coming to know of such act, initiated reference proceedings under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act on 22.02.1997 to the Collector against mutation No.10 whereby the name of widow Nand Rani was deleted and the land was entered in the name of Moti son of Bhorya, Govinda son of Bhorya and Chothu son of Bhorya and where after the said land was further entered in the name of other persons vide mutation nos.34, 44, 45, 46 and 64. The reference proceedings were initiated and on enquiry, it was found that Moti son of Bhorya who was by caste Meena and belonged to Scheduled Tribe, changed his religion to Christianity for the purpose of selling the land, although after his death, all rituals and ceremonies performed as per Hindu Rites.

3. The reference was initiated on the basis of the provision contained under Section 46 read with Section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which allowed letting or subletting by a widow, and therefore, the tenants would not acquire khatedari rights on her land in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1955. Name of Nand Rani was thus wrongly struck off in mutation No.10.

4. At the stage of reference, notices were issued to the LRs of Nand Rani i.e. the petitioner Mohan Singh (deceased). The other brothers of Moti, Govinda and Chothu were also served with notices and the successive transferees namely Rajeshwari Devi wife of Prakash Chand, Ramesh Chand son of Inder Chand and Bhanwar Mal son of Inder Chand were also issued notices.

5. Vide order dated 17.11.2004, the Collector answered the reference and set-aside the mutation No.10 and all successive transfers vide mutation Nos.34, 44, 45, 46 and 64. However thereafter, Collector did not revert the land back in the name of widow Nand Rani and directed the same to be registered as Siway Chak i.e. Government land and sent the reference for approval to the Board of Revenue.

6. The Board, registered the reference and while upholding the order of the Collector vide its order dated 06.08.2007, accepted the reference. The petitioner in the present writ petition, who is stated to be the legal representative of the widow Nand Rani has challenged the part of the order passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue whereby the land has been directed to be now entered as a Government land i.e. Siway Chak. Being aggrieved with order dated 06.08.2007 with regard to the denial of reverting the land to the widow Nand Rani and her LRs, and treating the land as Government land, the grand son of late Nand Rani namely Mohan Singh filed the Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The same was dismissed on 23.02.2010 and thereafter the review petition was preferred. During the pendency of the review petition Mohan Singh expired and the petitioner, the LR of Mohan Singh, namely Maithli Sharan Sharma preferred an application for substitution on the basis of the registered will dated 01.06.1990. The application was allowed by the Board however it dismissed the review petiti