JUDGMENT/ORDER :

1. The controversy involved in these two writ petitions are related to each other, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together.

2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner – Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the UIT’) being aggrieved with the judgments dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BOR’) in Appeal Nos.4649/2017 and 4651/2017, whereby the appeals filed by the UIT under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tenancy Act’) have been dismissed and revenue suits filed by the private respondents have been decreed with a direction that they be declared as Khatedars of the lands for which they filed the revenue suits. The petitioner – UIT has further been restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering in peaceful possession and use of the private respondents of the above land.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the private respondents filed two separate suits in the Court of Sub Division Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the SDM’) for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 188, 88, 63(1)(4) and 92-A of the Tenancy Act claiming that their ancestor Bhero Singh was the owner of 19.1 Bighas of land in village Savina, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur falling in Khasra Nos.587 and 548. It is claimed by the private respondents that the land of the above referred Khasras was duly recorded in the name of their ancestor Bhero Singh and thereafter his predecessors in the revenue record.

4. It is contended by the private respondents that during the settlement proceedings, the land of Khasra Nos.548 and 587 was converted into new Khasra Nos. 1631 and 1632. It is further contended that 2 bighas (0.4320 hectare) of land of the private respondents falls in Khasara No.548 but while converting the Khasra No.548 into new Khasra No.1623 only 0.1650 hectare of land has been recorded in the name of respondents and as such remaining 0.2670 hectare of land has not been recorded. It is also alleged that the land measuring 17.01 Bighas falling in old Khasra No.587 has not been recorded in the name of private respondents instead the same has inadvertently been recorded as Bilanam in the new settlement and thereafter allotted to the petitioner-UIT.

5. The private respondents in the revenue suits have prayed that they may be declared as Khatedar of the above referred land, which has now been recorded in the name of petitioner–UIT and they have also prayed for issuing a permanent injunction against the UIT, so that the UIT should not interfere in their rights.

6. The above referred suits were contested by the petitioner–UIT while contending that the disputed land is now recorded in the name of it and, therefore, the relief prayed for in the revenue suits cannot be granted. Some technical objections regarding non-issuance of notice under Section 80(2) CPC have also been raised by the petitioner–UIT.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the SDM has framed issues in both the suits and proceeded with the suits. The SDM suo moto called for the report from Tehsildar concerned with a direction to ascertain the facts regarding conversion of all Khasras into new Khasras and the lands recorded in new Khasras. In response to it, the Tehsildar concerned filed a detailed report.

8. The SDM has decided all the issues together, however, dismissed the revenue suits filed by the private respondents while recording a finding that the private respondents have failed to prove that their Khatedari land falling in Khasra Nos.587 and 548 is converted into new Khasra Nos.1631 and 1632. It is also concluded by the SDM that the lands of Khasra Nos.1631 and 1632 contain large chunk of land and the private respondents have failed to prove that in which part of these khasras, khatedari land of them is situated. The SDM has also observed that from the