The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of a party to seek correction of entries in revenue records under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case is listed in the 'orders' category, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No. LR/9377/2008/UDAIPUR (Kalu v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby, the second appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-Kalu filed an Application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") stating that vide order dated 28.10.1977, the land situated in Village Savina Khera, Tehsil Girwa at Araji No. 531, 545, 546, 547 & 585/60 ad-measuring 2 Bigha 13 Biswas was allotted to Mst. Mangudi W/o Hariram Meghvanshi. The mutation entries of the same were recorded in the Samvat 2031 and the name of Mst. Mangudi finds place in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2031-34. On account of the said land having been wrongly entered in the Revenue Records as 'Bilanam Land', the same was allotted to Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur for Abadi purposes and, therefore, the proceedings drawn by the respondents were void ab-initio. In these circumstances, an application under Section 136 of the Act was filed by respondent No. 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa rejected the application of the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 19.09.2007. This order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa was assailed by respondent No. 1 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur by filing an appeal and the same was rejected vide order dated 07.06.2008. Against the judgment dated 07.06.2008, the respondent no. 1 preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue and the learned Board of Revenue vide its judgment impugned dated 13.08.2010, allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1 by setting aside the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa and the order dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.

4. The learned Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 13.08.2010, directed the Revenue Authorities to enter 0.2731 hectare of land in the name of respondent No. 1, after making the inquiries about the possession of the land in different Khasras located in the area.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue is untenable on the ground that the orders dated 19.09.2007 and 07.06.2008 are perfectly justified as the same were passed after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned counsel further submits that since the order of allotment of land dated 15.04.1989 made in the favour of UIT, Udaipur was not challenged by the respondent No. 1, therefore, the entire proceedings undertaken by respondent No. 1 under Section 136 of the Act are not sustainable. He, therefore, prays that the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the learned Board of Revenue may be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the UIT, Udaipur submits that it is not clear from the record of the case that the land which was allotted to them belongs to the petitioner and unless the land allotment order made on 15.04.1989 is set aside, the possession of the land allotted to the UIT, Udaipur cannot be disputed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-Kalu submits that learned Board of Revenue had recorded detailed findings for setting aside the two orders and rightly came to the conclusion that the land to the extent of 0.5731 hectare was recorded in the Revenue Records in the name of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the same cannot be reduced to 0.3000 hectare by the Revenue Authorities. He, therefore, submits that the detailed reasoned order of the learned Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference by thi