JUDGMENT :

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"(i) the impugned Order dated 08.02.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowing the Revision Petition filed by the respondent no.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Order dated 26.10.2015 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Trial Court may kindly be upheld and the suit filed by the plaintiff may kindly be taken on record to its original number."

3. As the pleaded facts as well as the record of the case would reveal, the bone of contention in the present case is the recorded joint khatedari rights of the real brothers i.e. plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent No.1, claimed to be accruing in relation to an agricultural land (admeasuring 0.6200 hectare) comprising Araji No.1458 situated in Village Bhuvana, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (now said to be situated in Village Badgaon, District Udaipur). Such rights were also subject matter of a suit instituted before the Court of Assistant Collector (Fast Track), Girwa, Udaipur, under Sections 88, 188 & 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') by the plaintiff/ petitioner seeking declaration, partition and permanent injunction.

4. The genesis of the present dispute is traceable to the decision of the plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent No.1 to sell the land in question, wherein they both were having equal share, to one Ganesh Lal Mehta and Chandra Singh Mehta; but, as averred in the writ petition, the same could not have been done, on count of the fact that fragmentation of the land in question for the purpose of its sale was not legally permissible at the relevant time.

4.1 It was also averred in the writ petition that for the purpose of effecting such sale, while ruling out the possibility of any illegal fragmentation, the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendant/respondent No.1 verbally decided that the plaintiff/petitioner would sell the land of his share to the aforementioned persons and the consideration that would be received out of such sale would be equally divided between them;

Consequent whereupon, both the parties shall have equal share in the remaining 0.3100 hectare land (under the khatedari of defendant/respondent No.1), as mutually agreed between them.

Thereafter, the sale was accordingly effected and the sale consideration was received and shared equally between the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the recitations of the aforementioned verbal agreement were also reflected in the subsequent agreement dated 30.01.2001 entered into between the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendant/respondent No.1 in relation to their respective equal share in the remaining land in question.

5.1 Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner also submits that despite such verbal agreement and rightful equal share in the remaining land in question (admeasuring 0.3100 hectares), the defendant/respondent No.1 was given 0.1800 hectare land, whereas plaintiff/petitioner kept only 0.1300 hectare land. As per learned counsel, the extra 0.250 hectare land was given to the defendant/respondent No.1, in lieu of a house.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner further submits that despite such fairness on the part of the plaintiff/petitioner, followed by several requests made by him to the defendant/respondent No.1 to get their respective share in the remaining land in question recorded in the revenue records, the defendant/respondent No.1 never acceded to such requests. As per learned counsel, under these circumstances, the plaintiff/petitioner instituted the suit in question under the provisions of the Act of 1955 in the year 2015; alongwith the said suit, an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of