JUDGMENT :

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

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :

(i) The impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023 (Ann.6) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, judgment dated 24.12.2018 (Ann.5) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and judgment and decree dated 29.12.2016 (Ann.4) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bali District Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The suit filed by respondents under section 88, 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the respondent no.1 (since deceased represented through his legal representatives respondents no.1/1 to 1/6 herein) instituted a suit (registered as Revenue Case No. 237/2008) under Sections 88 & 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1955’) before the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan) against the petitioners and respondents no.2 to 6 for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction, stating therein that a land comprising old khasra no.144 measuring 16 bigha 16 biswa (new khasra no.293 rakba 3.36 hectares) situatedin Village-Bhagli, Tehsil-Bali was illegally, fraudulently and in collusion with the official of the settlement department, got recorded in the name of one Ota Ram (Otiya) (since deceased represented by his legal representatives-petitioners herein). It was thus prayed in the suit that such wrongful and fraudulent recording pertaining to the land in question may be cancelled and thereafter, the land in question may be recorded in the name of the respondents no.1 to 5 (private respondents), being the khatedar and descendants of the original khatedar Late Vena Ram (Veniya).

2.1. Thereafter, the learned SDO, after hearing the parties, vide the impugned judgment & decree dated 29.12.2016, allowed the aforementioned suit and the land in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal (registered as Revenue Appeal No. 17/2017) before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Pali, under Section 223 of the Act of 1955, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2018. Against the said judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners preferred a second appeal (registered as Appeal/Decree/TA/ 362/2019/Pali) under Section 224 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which too was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023, while upholding the impugned judgment passed by the learned RAA. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the private respondents claimed themselves to be the descendants of Rama s/o Vena Ram (Veniya) while showing the mutation entry no.28 dated 21.10.1962, despite the fact that the said mutation entry was recorded in name of Rama s/o Keniya and not in the name of Ram s/o Vena Ram (Veniya), and therefore, the averments made by the private respondents were baseless and false.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners’ father (Late Ota Ram) was the cultivator of the land in question and the lagan and other land expenses were also paid by the petitioners and their late father, and therefore the impugned judgments are not justified in law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the land in question was cultivated by the petitioners and their father for last 60 years. It was furth