JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“1. That the impugned Order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure 6) be set aside and quashed and the matter be remanded back to Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication.

2. Any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued.

3. That the Cost may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner is a joint tenant holder of the agricultural land comprising Araji No. 646 admeasuring 0.4450 hectare, Araji no. 647 admeasuring 0.0100 hectare and Araji no. 648 admeasuring 0.1850 hectare, total area 0.6400 hectares situated in Sector 14, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘disputed land’). The disputed land comprises share of 1/2 (one-half) of land between petitioner and respondents no. 2 & 3, and the other half is shared between respondents no. 4 to 6. The respondents no.2 & 3 and the petitioner entered into an agreement and executed a document, whereby the said land was divided into 27 plots and partitioned between them and plot no.7 came in the share of petitioner. An application was preferred before the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Udaipur under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) for conversion of disputed land from agricultural into non-agricultural use. However vide its order dated 06.10.2001, the UIT allotted only one plot to the petitioner, instead of 5 plots.

2.1. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of UIT, an appeal under Section 90B(7) of the Act of 1956 was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Divisional Commissioner (ADC), Udaipur; the same was allowed vide order 19.12.2002 as the division of Co-Khatedari rights should have been in accordance with the Rajasthan Tenancy (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1955, yet the same had not been followed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and the learned BoR, while allowing the revision vide order 10.07.2012, held no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956.

2.2. Subsequently a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of learned BoR before this Hon’ble Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7486/2012 (Smt. Sheela Kothari v. Board of Revenue & Ors.); however the same was dismissed vide order 07.08.2012, so also the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.920/2012 (Smt. Sheela Kothari v. Board of Revenue & Ors.) filed in furtherance of the aforesaid dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 84 read with Section 9 of the Act of 1956 before learned BoR challenging the order of UIT, yet again it was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2023, while holding that the order of the UIT was passed under Section 90B(3) of the Act of 1956, and therefore, revision was not maintainable against such order. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents no. 2 & 3 prepared a fabricated, forged, unstamped and unregistered agreement, and thereafter, in collusion with UIT, Udaipur, only one plot was allotted to the petitioner by the conversion order dated 06.10.2001, when instead he was entitled to 5 plots. It was further submitted that the appeal preferred before the Additional Divisional Commissioner was allowed wherein it was held that Rajasthan Tenancy (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1955 are applicable for the division of co-khatedari rights of Araji land, and for implementation of Section 53 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955, provision from Rule 18 to 21 of the Rules of 1955 have been made, and thus the division of land between the petitioner and respondents no.2 & 3 was not done in a