JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

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

“The petitioners, therefore, pray that:

(a) an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued quashing the Order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 25.06.97 (Annexure-6).

(b) any other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed expedient for the ends of justice, may be issued.

(c) cost be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram was a temporary tenant in Khasra Nos. 73, 74 and 77 (Village Shyamgarh, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar), measuring 44 Bighas 5 Biswas. After incorporation, with retrospective effect of Section 15 in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) the land in question was permanently allotted to the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram on 29.04.1972. The said allotment however, was cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Colonisation on 24.02.1981, aggrieved whereby, the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram preferred a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, but the same was dismissed.

2.1. Thereafter, the State Legislature incorporated Section 15AAA vide Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 1983 published in the Rajasthan Gazette; subsequently, the petitioner’s father Shri Khub Ram filed an application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 before the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Bijeynagar, whereafter the said Colonisation Department was wound up, and the functions thereof were ordered to be discharged by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Raisinghnagar.

2.2. Subsequently, Shri Khub Ram (petitioners’ father) died on 31.12.1989, and the petitioners (legal representatives herein) approached the learned SDO for substitution being successors of Late Khub Ram, which was accordingly done. The learned SDO vide order dated 18.02.1991 allowed the petitioners’ application and gave khatedari rights to the petitioners, in relation to the land in question. Thereafter, the Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar made a reference vide order dated 22.11.1996 under Section 232 of the Act of 1955 to the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, against the order dated 18.02.1991; whereupon, the learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 25.06.1997, while accepting the said reference, quashed and set aside the order dated 18.02.1991 passed by the learned SDO. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashank Joshi, on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the learned SDO in the aforementioned order dated 18.02.1991 clearly recorded that the application under Section 15AAA of the Act of 1955 was not available on the official record, but the same was filed by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners’ application was pending since 1984 and it was decided only in the year 1991; therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, in such factual matrix, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is not justified in law.

3.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that mere non-production of the record by the Colonisation Department, in relation to the application under Section 15 AAA of the Act of 1955 cannot become a basis for holding that no such application was pending. Thus, on that count also, the impugned order passed by the learned BoR is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned SDO in its order clearly observed that declaration of the khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners was not hit by any of the provisions of ceiling law, and the learned BoR even did not dealt with the argument made in that regard before it, prior to passing the impugned order. Thus, as per learned Senior Couns