The court upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue Courts and emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court in issuing directions under a writ petition.

JUDGMENT

1. On 13.10.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions after arguing at length.

2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to argue the case on merit.

3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity "the BoR") in Appeal No.2720/2020 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the RAA") in Appeal No.18/2019 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar (for short "the learned trial Court") in Case No.185/2014 decreeing the revenue suit filed by the respondents under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act of 1955"), has been dismissed.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") filed a revenue suit under Sections 88, 183 & 188 of the Act of 1955 against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondents No.7 & 8/defendants No.2 & 3 stating therein that they are Khatedars of Khasra No.1728 measuring 73 aer, village Alwar No.1, Tehsil & District Alwar. It was averred that they were in possession of 37 aer of land only and rest 36 aer of land towards western side, was used by the UIT, Alwar for construction of roads without acquisition and on their objection, they were allotted 40 per cent developed land by the UIT, Alwar in Vijaynagar Scheme in lieu of 36 aer of land. It was alleged that 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728 was encroached upon by the petitioner/defendant No.1 (for short "the defendant No.1") in the year 2003. Therefore, a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and dispossession was prayed for.

5. The defendant No.1 in its written statement submitted that it is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706 which the plaintiffs were erroneously claiming to be part of land of Khasra No.1728. It was admitted in the reply that it has no concern with the 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728.

6. The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 which came to be assailed by the plaintiffs as also by the defendant No.1 by way of separate appeals which were partly allowed by the RAA in Appeal No.2/2014 vide judgment dated 02.12.2014 whereby, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2014, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide it afresh. After remand, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 03.06.2019, decreed the suit and declared the plaintiffs as Khatedars of the land of Khasra No.1728, the defendant No.1 was injuncted not to interfere with use and occupation of the subject land by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, the Tehsildar, Alwar was directed to restore possession of 37 aer land of Khasra No.1728 to the plaintiffs and to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue record. The judgment and decree dated 03.06.2019 were unsuccessfully challenged by the defendant No.1 by way of an Appeal No.18/2019 which came be to be dismissed by the RAA vide its judgment dated 18.02.2020 which has been affirmed by the BoR vide its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020.

7. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2020, placing reliance upon Section 111 of the Act of 1955, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since, it is in possession of the land of Khasra No.1706, the revenue authorities may be directed to demarcate the land of Khasra No.1706 also along with demarcation of land of Khasra No.1728. He, therefore, prays that the judgment and decree may be modified accordingly.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6/caveator would submit that the scope of thi