Point of Law :
Court is in complete agreement with reasoning adopted by BOR - There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the BOR.

ORDER :

1. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 29.06.2016, passed by learned Board of Revenue (BOR) Ajmer in Revision/6763/2011, whereby revision-petition filed by the respondents was allowed. The matter pertains to Mutation Entry No. 192 dated 20.04.2002, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Sandeda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputed land in question measuring 29 Bigas 11 Biswa belonged to ancestors of petitioner and the performa respondents, but in the records, the said land was wrongly entered in the name of one Veerumal S/o Relumal Sindhi, by the department of settlement in Samvat 2028. Thereafter, mutation No. 192 dated 20.04.2002 was wrongly opened in favour of the respondents as legal successors of Veerumal S/o Relumal without proper enquiry of the legal successors and against the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and also against the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appeal against the same, preferred by the petitioners, before Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Piplu, Tonk, was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tehsildar, Piplu to decide the matter afresh after inquiring about legal successor of Veerumal S/o Relumal, vide order dated 28.12.2005. Against the said order, respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner (ADC), Ajmer and after hearing both the sides, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2011. Against the same, respondents preferred a revision before Board of Revenue. During pendency of revision, two applications were filed by the petitioner dated 04.03.2013 and 23.11.2015. In application dated 04.03.2013 it was averred that as the order dated 28.12.2005 was never successfully challenged, in pursuance thereto, the Tehsildar has concluded the investigation and passed fresh orders and therefore the revision has become infructous. In application dated 23.11.2015, it was averred that some of the non-applicants therein have died and therefore the revision stands abated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that one application (dated 31.05.2016) was also filed by the respondent averring that the suit for declaration, filed by the petitioners, having Suit No. 60/2003 was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 17.05.2010 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that merely relying upon the application filed by the respondents, and without considering the merits of the applications filed by the petitioners, the BOR reversed the concurrent finding, allowed the revision-petition and passed order against dead persons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court reported in 2017 DNJ (SC) 415 titled Gurnam Singh Vs. Gurbachan Kaur and 2009 DNJ (SC) 244 titled as T. Gnanavel Vs. T. S. Kanagaraj & Anr. to submit that decree against dead person is nullity in the eye of the law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon order dated 17.05.2010 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No. 60/2003, wherein the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner was decided against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that once the Civil Court, being the competent authority, have adjudicated that the respondents are the valid legal successors and that once mutation no. 192-194-195 are held to be valid by the Civil Court, the orders dated 28.12.2005 and 23.09.2011 (which were challenged in the revision petition) becomes redundant. More so, when the appeal against the order dated 17.05.2010 was also dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2016. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that as the matter was sub judice before the BOR, it hardly matters whether the Tehsildar has pa