The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of government notifications declaring land as Forest land on the legality of subsequent sales and ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5560/1994 preferred by the petitioners.

2. Through the writ petition, the petitioners sought to assail the order dated 30.10.1982, whereby reference was made for cancellation of mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners, the order dated 13.07.1989, whereby the Board of Revenue accepted the reference, and the judgment dated 23.09.1994, whereby D.B. of the Board of Revenue dismissed the Appeal preferred against the acceptance of reference.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below.

4. Late Shri Bhairo Singh was the erstwhile Jagirdar of the Village Majawad, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur. It is claimed that land bearing Khasra No. 20 ad measuring 158 bigha 9 biswa and Khasra No. 23 ad measuring 296 bigha 8 biswa in Village Majawad was the Khud Kast land of Shri Bhairo Singh and was in his possession, for which entry was made by the Settlement Department in Samwat Year 1995. With coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, Shri Bhairo Singh became Khatedar of the land in question. At the time of coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the year 1955, the land continued to be in his possession and was entered in the Revenue record as Khud Kast land of Thikana Gogunda. Thus, Shri Bairo Singh claims to have acquired Khatedari rights by virtue of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A parcel of land from these two Khasras was transferred to the appellant writ petitioners by virtue of registered sale deed executed in the year 1963. The disputed mutation entry No. 95 was sanctioned as a consequence of the registered sale deed. However, long before that in the year 1945 and 1946, the Government of Mewar issued the notifications dated 21.10.1945 and 27.12.1946 declaring the lands of the questioned Khasras in the Village Majawad to be Forest area. The Additional Collector, Udaipur issued notices to the petitioners (purchasers) calling upon them to show cause as to why reference be not made for cancellation of the mutation entry No. 95 on the basis of the notifications dated 21.10.1945 and 27.12.1946. This action was taken on the application of the Forest Department authorities, which banked upon the gazette notifications dated 21.10.1945 and 27.12.1946 issued by the then Mewar Government declaring the land in question to be Forest land. Accordingly, reference was made vide order dated 30.10.1982. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference by the order dated 13.07.1989 and declared the mutation entry to be illegal as the land could not have been transferred by Shri Bhairo Singh, who had no title thereof. The appellants unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 13.07.1989 by filing an appeal, which came to be rejected by Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by order dated 23.09.1994. Having failed before the Revenue courts, the petitioners approached this court by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the order dated 07.05.2007, which is assailed in this intra court appeal.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Sharma, representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that:

(1) That as per the settlement records, entry of the Khasra numbers in question stood in the name of Thikana Gogunda in the Samwat Year 1995 and the same position continued till the Samwat Years 2013 and 2014.

(2) No description of the land was set out in the notifications dated 21.10.1945 and 27.12.1946 and thus, it is apparent that the land in question, which was sold to the petitioners by the Shri Bairo Singh, Jagirdar, Gogunda, was different from the one which was notified as forest by the above notifications.

(3) He further urged that the findings which have been recorded in the analogous ceiling proceedings fortify the claim of the appellants that the land was lawfully sold to