JUDGMENT :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. The present writ petitions arise out of the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1991 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector & Executive Magistrate, Chaksu, Camp Sanganer (for short ‘the trial court’), in Civil Suit No. 215/1986, which was allowed and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. The validity of the said judgment and decree was assailed before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the first appellate court’), by way of filing an Appeal No. 49/1993 by the State of Rajasthan and another Appeal No. 38/1993 by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the JDA’) which were dismissed vide judgment dated 14.12.2018. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.1.1991 and judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 14.12.2018 were challenged by the State of Rajasthan before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short ‘the second appellate court’), by filing an Appeal No. 3057/2019 and also by the JDA by filing Appeal No. 763/2019. The Court of Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, dismissed both the appeals vide its judgment dated 6.3.2020.

2. Since both the above numbered writ petitions arise out of the judgments and decrees passed by the three courts below and the subject matter being common, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts in brief borne out from the pleadings of the writ petitions are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit before the trial court for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 4 measuring 195 bigha and 16 Biswa situated in Village Muhana, District Jaipur (present Khasra No. 275 of Village Mohanpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur) stating therein that they are the agriculturists and residents of village Mohanpura, Tehsil Sanganer and they are the tenants of the land in question. It was further stated by the plaintiffs/respondents in the suit that at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) i.e. in Samvat 2012, they were in cultivatory possession of the land in question and the Settlement Department at the time of settlement proceedings illegally and without notice to them recorded the land as Siwai Chak, though the Settlement Department has no jurisdiction to change the category of the land. It was further stated that on the basis of the wrong entry about the category of the land in question as Siwai Chak, the defendants authorities are bent upon to evict the plaintiffs from the land in question. In the suit it was prayed as under:

¼d½ nkok oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknhx.k fMØh fd;k tkdj bLrdjkj bl vej dk fd;k tkos fd oknhx.k Hkwfe lkfcdk [kljk uEcj 4 jdck 195 ch?kk 16 fcLok okds xzke eqgkuk rRdkyhu rglhy t;iqj o gky [kljk uEcj 275 jdck 195 ch?kk 16 fcLok okds xzke eksguiqjk rglhy lkaxkusj ds [kkrsnkj dk’rdkj gS ,oa oknhx.k dks eqUntkZ en uEcj 4 vthZnkok [kkrsnkj dk’rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos ,oa tekcanh lsfVyesUV ,oa jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa tgka flokbZpd yxku bl Hkwfe dks fy[kk gS og fujLr dj oknhx.k dks [kkrsnkj vafdr fd;k tk;sA

¼[k½ ;g gS fd Áfroknhx.k dks tfj;s gqDe bErukbZ nokeh ls ikcan fd;k tkos fd oks Hkwfe [kljk uEcj lkfcdk 4 okds fLFkr xzke eqgkuk rRdkyhu rglhy t;iqj o gky [kljk uEcj 175 jdck 195 ch?kk 16 fcLok fLFkr xzke eksguiqj esa oknhx.k ds dCts dk’r esa fdlh Ádkj dk dksbZ gLr{ksi djs u fdlh ls djkosA

¼x½ gtkZ o [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tkosA

¼?k½ vU; nknjlh tks cgd oknhx.k dks fnykbZ tkosA

4. The State through Tehsildar submitted the written statement and denied the averments as stated in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. However, in the written statement the petitioner-State has admitted that the plaintiffs are agriculturists and are in cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was further stated in the written statement that during the settlement proceedings, vide order dated 3.2.1960 in Misal No. 1476/1960, the land was recorded as Siwai Chak and the land measu