The legal principle established is the authority of the Board of Revenue to allow revision petitions and remand matters for further consideration.

ORDER

1. The present batch of writ petitions arise out of the similar and identical order 17.09.2015 (Annex.6) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on the revision applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 84 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1956’), therefore, the present writ petitions are heard and decided by this common order.

2. For deciding the controversy, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5356/2018 (Raju & Ors. V/s Divisional Forest Officer & Ors.) are being taken into consideration.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to be noted in the present case are that the petitioners were allotted lands in the year 1974 under the Rules of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Rules of 1970’) and since then the petitioners are in possession of those lands. After the lands were allotted, the proceedings under Section 90B for conversion of the land was undertaken by the UIT, Udaipur and the conversion orders were passed in the year 2007. Against the conversion orders, the respondent No.1 preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the same was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 was further challenged by way of filing revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision petitions preferred by the Forest Department-respondent No.1. Against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Divisional Commissioner, the Forest Department preferred the writ petitions before this Court and same were rejected by this Court by order dated 13.05.2022.

4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners were served with a notice under Rule 14(4) of the Rules of 1970. The petitioners by way of filing reply submitted preliminary objections in the matter. The District Collector vide order dated 09.03.2015 rejected the preliminary submi55ssions made by the petitioners and ordered that the controversy in the present case will be decided after hearing the respondents and evaluating the documents and evidence brought on record. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2015, the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 17.09.2015 allowed the revision petitions of the petitioners and remanded the matter back to Collector with a direction to decide the preliminary objections submitted by the petitioners in the light of the observations made by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 17.09.2015.