JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

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:

"In view of the aforementioned facts and grounds, it is humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed. An appropriate writ direction or order in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 03.06.2002 (Annex. 5) may kindly be quashed."

3. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an agriculturist, claimed to be in possession of the land in question, at Khasra No. 69 admeasuring 100 bighas in Village Tidiyasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, for a period of about 100 years. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner claimed to be an allottee of the land since when the Bikaner Tenancy Act, 1945 came into force.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner acquired the right of cultivation and continued to cultivate the said land in question, under Section 24 of the Bikaner Act, and that the petitioner was recorded as the tenant of the lands in Khatauni of Samvat Years 2011 to 2014.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was conferred khatedari rights by a deeming provision, under Section 15AAA (2-A) by the Rajasthan State Legislature vide amendment in November, 1992 to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955').

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's name from the Khatauni, with respect to the said land in question, was removed and the same land in question was declared as 'gochar' land.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner then filed a suit for declaration as khatedar under Section 88 of the Act of 1955, but the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), Nohar (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') dismissed the said suit vide its judgment dated 30.03.1992 finding the land to be 'gochar land'.

Section 88 of the Act of 1955 reads as follows-

"88. Suits for declaration of right.-- (1) Any person claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant may sue for a declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration of his share in such joint tenancy.

(2) A tenant of Khudkasht may sue for a declaration that he is such a tenant.

(3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from whom he holds for declaration that he is a sub-tenant.

(4) A landholder other than a State Government may sue a person claiming to be a tenant or co-tenant of a holding or a tenant of Khudkasht or a sub-tenant for a declaration of the right of such person."

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforementioned judgment passed by the Trial Court before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide its judgment dated 05.06.1995, ruled in favour the petitioner, while relying upon the statements of the defendants in their written statements to the effect that the Khasra No. 69 was old Khasra and that two new khasras were carved out from the same land, being khasra no. 147 admeasuring 14 bighas and khasra no. 213 admeasuring 86 bighas, and declared the petitioner as the khatedar of the land in question in new khasras no. 213 and 147.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the aforementioned judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the respondents No. 2 to 29 preferred an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; simultaneously, the State Government filed a review application b