The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of establishing legal heirship through valid documents and the impact of illiteracy and lack of awareness on possession rights.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the second appeal filed by the State has been allowed.

3. The brief facts necessary to be narrated are that the petitioner being daughter of Miran Khan was in possession of agricultural land situated at Khasra No.17 & 19 of village Punasar, Prior to this, father of the petitioner was in possession of this land and erstwhile, it was called as Khasra No.4 of village Devikot. Because of famine, father of the petitioner left his village for earning his livelihood. In these circumstances, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer in proceedings No.72/1970 under section 63 (8) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 passed an order dated 11.08.1971 by which 46 bighas land of Khasra No.46 was recorded as Government land. Since, the petitioner was residing on the subject piece of land and when, she came to know the fact regarding passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer, she preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority, (Barmer- Jaisalmer) vide its order dated 18.07.2006 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner while setting aside the order dated 11.08.1971. Against the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the State preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its order dated 09.08.2019 allowed the appeal preferred by the State while setting aside the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.08.2019, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Board of Revenue has committed an error while allowing the appeal filed by the State as the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the petitioner is legal heir of Miran Khan and delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the fact of passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 and since the petitioner is an illiterate Pardanashin lady, therefore, she was not moving out of her dwelling house (Dhani) and adjoining land. Thus, she was not aware of the proceedings undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record succession certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Devikot, passport copy of the petitioner and application for treating her to be a beneficiary under the Bhamashah scheme. Learned counsel further submits that affidavits filed before the learned first appellate authority were taken note of and were relied upon for considering the fact that the petitioner is a lawful legal heir of Miran Khan. It is also contended that even the documents annexed with the present writ petition also go to show that the petitioner is the only legal heir of Miran Khan and no documents contrary to the documents filed by the petitioner has been filed by the State to show that the petitioner is not a legal heir of Miran Khan. It is, therefore, submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed an error in allowing the second appeal filed by the State. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be said to be a conclusive factor for assuming the petitioner to be a lawful and legal heir of Miran Khan. Learned State counsel further submits that these documents have been prepared by the petitioner after the orders passed by the lower courts. It is also contended that delay of 35 years in approac