JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(A) by an appropriate writ, order the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, (ANNEX-9) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed;

(B) by an appropriate writ, order the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 learned SDO Churu, Ajmer, (ANNEX-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed;

(C) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner;

(D) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that:-

The original suit was filed by the predecessor of the petitioner-plaintiff and during the pendency of litigation Dhanne Singh, Rugh Singh and Magan Singh died at their native Village Rampura Patta Jharia. The petitioners-plaintiff Nos.2, 7 and 8 are legal heirs of Rugh Singh, the petitioners-plaintiff Nos.4, 5 and 6 are legal heirs of Dhanne Singh and the petitioners-plaintiff Nos.3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are legal heirs of Magan Singh, and the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs as a right to survival of the suit in the present litigation.

3. On 28.01.1994, father of the petitioners-plaintiffs Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and remaining petitioners-plaintiffs, have filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Court of SDO, Churu regarding the land bearing Khasra No.37.189 and 191 rakba 41 bighas and 17 biswas which is henceforth called “land in question”, which is cultivated by Late Shri Mangal Singh (Grandfather of the petitioners-plaintiffs) before settlement operation. One Shri Mangal Singh died on 25.09.1992 and thereafter, till date, his legal heirs cultivated the land in question. A wrong entry was made in the name of Anna Ram and Mala Ram and consequently, the land in question was entered into the name of State Government.

4. That the petitioners-plaintiffs further pleaded in the suit that the land in question is still in possession and till today, they are cultivating the land in question. Respondent No.4, threatens to dispossess the petitioner-plaintiff from the land in question and therefore, they are entitled to get the decree of declaration and perpetual injunction.

5. After the registration of the suit, the respondent No.4 had filed reply to the suit wherein the respondent admitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs were having record of possession in their name from samvat 2012 to 2032, but not in proper performa.

6. During course of the trial, PW-3 Jessa Ram son of Valla Ram, categorically stated that his agricultural land is situated next to the land in question and he also adduced that the petitioners-plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question. Moreover, PW-4 Ladhu Ram son of Purna Ram also stated the same that the petitioners-plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question.

7. The State Government also issued notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (allotment of land for agricultural purpose) Rules, 1970, to the petitioners-plaintiffs.

8. The State of Rajasthan did not adduce any evidence in defence before the trial court and after conclusion of trial, the respondent No.3, SDO, Churu, vide its judgment dated 26.03.2010 dismissed the suit.

9. Against the judgment dated 26.03.2010, the petitioners-plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who vide its reasoned and detailed judgment dated 30.11.2012, set aside the judgment while holding that there was no evidence placed on behalf of the State to rebut the evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs that they are not in lawful possession of the land in dispute. The trial court, while hearing the claim of the petitioners