JUDGMENT :

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed, setting aside order dated 25.04.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board of Revenue’) and the appellants have been directed to forthwith record the land in dispute in the name of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner-trust, however, with the observation that Respondent No. 1-trust shall adhere to fulfill the undertakings given in proceedings before the learned Single Judge.

2. Case of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner is that its predecessor-ininterest namely, Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal (Respondents No. 4 and 5 in writ petition), bought the subject land in the year 1942 from one Thakur Raghuvir Singh (who according to Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was Thikanedar of Bissau). According to Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner, the land in dispute was subsequently transferred in favour of Respondent No. 1-Paliram Charity Trust by Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal. Further, Seth Pali Ram wanted to establish a pasture land for cows and in order to earn pious deeds, Seth Pali Ram purchased the land from Thakur Raghuvir Singh for consideration of Rs. 17,683/-. According to the patta (title deed) issued by the then Thikanedar of Bissau, the land was to be used only as a pasture land for the cattle of the village. Further case of Respondent No. 1- writ petitioner is that even if part of the land were to be used for agricultural purpose, even then the income earned from the agricultural activities was to be used for the benefit of the pasture land. It was also the case of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner based on recitals contained in the so-called patta that though, a house could be built, but it was to be used only for the purpose of housing of such persons who would look after the pasture land and further the land could not be used for the personal usage of Seth Pali Ram.

3. Further case of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was that though the patta was issued in favour of Seth Pali Ram by Thakur Raghuvir Singh, the land was not mutated in his name, therefore, till 1954, the land was shown in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh (common land). In 1954, Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the SDO’) for necessary corrections in the revenue records. The SDO called for a report from the Numberdar of the area and on 27.08.1954, the Numberdar submitted its report to the SDO stating that Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal had bought the land from Thikanedar of Bissau and they were in possession for the last 12 years. They have constructed a boundary wall around the said land. The land has been left as Gochar-bhoom, i.e. pasture land. Out of the total land, 16 bighas of land has been kept for agricultural purposes. The SDO also called for a report from Tehsildar. The Tehsildar submitted its report on 18.09.1954 in which it was stated that, although the land was shown as Shamlat (common land), the land was earlier sold by Thikana Bissau after taking the consideration from Seth Pali Ram and Brij Lal. The report of the Tehsildar reflected that he visited the land and discovered that Seth Pali Ram had constructed a wall around the land and the land was in his possession. It was also reported that the cattle belonging to village graze in the land without the villagers paying any tax. The Tehsildar further noted that according to the patta of 1942, the land could be used for agricultural purpose and not for purpose of construction of a house or for any personal use. According to this report, statement of Numberdar was recorded who informed possession of Seth Pali Ram for the last 12 years. The Tehsildar also got a site plan prepared of the area by the Patwari which also formed part of his report. According to Patwari, the land should have been recorded in the name of Seth Pali Ram and B