Sangeet Lodha, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 15.2.18 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby while accepting the reference made by the District Collector, Deedwana under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"), vide order dated 10.12.08, mutation of the land ad measuring 0.08 bighas category 'gair mumkin nadi', comprising khasra no.22 and 10.06 bighas category 'gair mumkin paitan' comprising khasra no.23 of village- Dhananwa, Tehsil-Parbatsar, District-Nagaur made in favour of the petitioner's father Pemaram, stands cancelled.

2. The relevant facts are that lands ad measuring 0.08 bighas comprising khasra no.22 categorised as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 10.06 bighas comprising khasra no.23 categorised as 'gair mumkin paitan' were mutated in name of the petitioner's father Pemaram vide mutation no.107 pursuant to order dated 14.12.73 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar. After the death of Pemaram, the land was mutated in the name of the petitioner vide mutation no.149.

3. The District Collector, Nagaur made a reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 for cancellation of the mutation of the land in question made in favour of the petitioner and to enter the land in the revenue record as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'gair mukin paitan'. The Board of Revenue after due consideration arrived at the finding that keeping in view the provisions of Section 16 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), the land categorised as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'gair mumkin paitan' were not available for allotment and no khatedari right could accrue in respect of such land in favour of the petitioner and thus, keeping in view a Bench decision of this court dated 2.8.04 rendered in the matter of 'Abdul Rahman vs. State', the position of the land deserves to be restored as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'gair mumkin paitan'. Accordingly, the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner's father and subsequently in favour of the petitioner, have been cancelled and the position of the land as it was existing prior to the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner's father is ordered to be restored. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Board has committed gross illegality in coming to the conclusion that the lands in question fall within the category of 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'gair mumkin paitan'. It is submitted that the khatedari rights were conferred upon the petitioner's father by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar vide order dated 14.12.73 taking into consideration his long possession over the land in question and thus, after a lapse of 35 years, it is absolutely unjustified to divest the petitioner from his khateadri land on the pretext of the judgment rendered by this court in Abdul Rahman's case. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned has been passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the reference made after so many years was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

6. Indisputably, the lands in question were recorded as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'gair mumkin paitan' in the revenue record of Samvat 2006. It is not in dispute that the category of the land was never changed by an order of the competent authority and thus, by virtue of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Agriculture Land) Rules, 1970( for short "the Rules"), no khatedari rights could have accrued in favour of the petitioner's father who was alleged to be in cultivatory possession thereof.

7. In the matter of 'Abdul Rahman v. State,2005 RRT 59', a Bench of this court has issued direction to the State Gove