Point of Law:
acquisition of the land in question is intact, the suit filed by the appellants for grant of Khatedari rights was not maintainable as per the provisions of sections 63(iii) and 16(vi) of the Act of 1955.

JUDGMENT :

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. Inextricably interlinked are the questions of facts and law involved in the above-noted two writ applications, and therefore, the matters have been taken up for final adjudication together by this common order, consented by the counsel for the parties.

2. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate (I), Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 18/1983, without impleading the petitioner-Vinod Sharma, compelled him to institute an appeal No. 65/1999, before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, granted the application condoning the delay in institution of appeal vide order dated 21st May, 2001. The petitioners-Moti and Ors (in Civil Writ Application 11141/2014), aggrieved thereof, instituted a revision petition No. TA/117/2001/Jaipur, before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein order dated 21st May, 2001, condoning the delay in institution of Appeal, was set aside holding that the reasons detailed out in the application seeking condonation of delay of 14 years under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not inspire confidence and were not worth relying upon for condonation of delay of 14 years vide order dated 31st October, 2003. Thus, rendered the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, barred by limitation, of which the petitioner-Vinod Sharma is aggrieved of.

3. Mori and ors.-Petitioners in the connected writ application No. 11141/2014, are also aggrieved of the order dated 19th March, 2011, made by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made by the Assistant Collector (I), Jaipur, in favour of the petitioners (Moti and Ors.), has been set aside being void ab-initio and nullity, on a reference made by the State-respondents. It is in this factual matrix that the matters have spiralled up to this Court.

(i) Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are : that the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur, rejected request of Brahmanand (father of petitioner-Vinod Sharma) since deceased, for recording the land in his possession in the record of rights to the extent of 7¼ bighas of Khasra No. 95 and 210, of village Sukhalpura for the reason that the land was recorded as 'Charagahas'. On an appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, found that in the samvat/year 2015, at the time of survey, Brahmananad was in possession of 7¼ bighas of land in Khasra no. 95, and therefore, granted the appeal to that extent. A revision petition instituted by the Gram Panchayat, Sukhalpura before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, concluded that for the matter was covered by Section 125 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), determination of the matter would depend upon factum of possession. Thus, according to mandate of Section 25 of the Act of 1956, land was required to be recorded by the Settlement Department, under Section 151, in the name of the person, who was found in possession after summary enquiry. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed with costs vide order dated 16th October, 1971, which attained finality. An application for correction of revenue entries was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer by petitioner-Vinod Sharma, which was declined on 13th January, 1997. An appeal was successfully instituted before the Additional Divisional Commissioner wherein setting aside the order date 13th January, 1997, directions were issued for compliance of the order made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated 15th October, 1971, upholding the order made by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19th June, 1968, which had attained finality. In the meanwhile, subject land of Khasra No. 95, was acquired in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board for which a notification was publis