JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly pleaded for final disposal of these petitions at this stage. Accordingly, the matters were heard finally at this stage itself.

3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5108/2020:

“1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction may issued and, quash the Order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Tehsildar, Sujangarh and the order dated 03.01.2020 (Annexure-7) passed by the Sub Tehsildar, Salasar, may also quashed and set aside.

2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

3. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3539/2014

“1. Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quash the order dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure-3) passed by learned learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Reference Number 4234/2007 Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ, order, direction, the application u/s 82 of the L.R. Act dated 14.06.2006 preferred by Tehsildar (Annexure 1) may kindly be dismissed.

3. Any other writ, direction or order necessary for ends of justice be issued.

4. Cost of writ petition be awarded.”

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the above-numbered WP No. 3539/2014, the Tehsildar, Sujangarh, District Churu passed an order dated 24.08.2018 and directed to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question and also initiated the proceeding against him, followed by an order dated 03.01.2020 in regard to ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question, and therefore, another above-numbered WP No. 5108/2020 has also been preferred by the same petitioner-Balu Ram s/o Shri Goru Ram.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, submitted that the petitioner is a khatedar cultivator of the land in khasra Nos. 553 (Rakba 05 bigha), 561 (Rakba 01 bigha 05 biswa), and 562 (Rakba 10 bighas) - total 16 bigha 05 biswa - situated at Village Khudi, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 14.06.1976 from one Narendra Singh s/o Shri Devi Singh, the erstwhile khatedar of the land.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the controversy arose when Tehsildar, Sujangarh, District Churu filed a reference application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the District Collector, Churu, requesting to send the reference to the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, on the ground that the land in question belonged to Gair Mumkin Johad, at the time of settlement. The Tehsildar, Sujangarh also stated in the said application that since the land was reserved as Johad Refaey Aam, therefore, the entry in the name of Narendra Singh as Khatedar was illegal, and thus, the land deserved to be recorded as Johad, while cancelling the Khatedari, as subsequently held by the petitioner, pursuant to execution of the aforementioned registered sale deed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the aforementioned reference application, upon being transferred from the District Collector, Churu to the Additional Collector, Churu, was registered, and thereafter, an ex parte order dated 30.03.2007 was passed by the Additional Collector, Churu, and accordingly, the reference was sent to the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. As per the learned counsel, the said order was passed, even without effecting service of notice of the said proceeding upon the petition