ORDER :

1. The matter pertains to the year 2002, thus, was listed under the category “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

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

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.11.1987 (2.12.1987) (Annexure-7), 24.6.1993 (Annexure-8), 26.11.1998 (Annexure-9) and 4.12.2001 (Annexure-11) passed by the S.D.O. Bali, Revenue Appellate Authority (Second), Jodhpur and Board of Revenue respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Costs throughout may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, by learned counsel of the petitioner are that in a land bearing khasra numbers 2255, 2256, 2259 and 2260 (old khasra nos.472 & 473) situated in Narlai, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, the petitioner was having half share. At the time of first settlement, name of the petitioner’s father was recorded as one of the khatedars of the land in question.

3.1. Thereafter, Deity Doli Banam Charbhuja Ji Temple through its Pujari filed an application against the petitioner, which was dismissed by the learned Assistant Land Revenue Officer, Jodhpur vide order dated 18.01.1987; aggrieved whereby, the Deity filed an appeal before the learned Additional Land Revenue Officer, Jodhpur, which was allowed vide order dated 08.07.1987, and while quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order dated 18.01.1987, the matter was remanded back to the learned Assistant Land Revenue Officer, to decide the matter afresh after given opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, on the following issues :

^^1& D;k jktLFkku ys.M fjosU;w ,oa fjtEi'ku vkWQ tkxhj ,DV dh ykxw gksus ls iwoZ bl fooknxzLr Hkwfe ds dk'rdkjksa dks gsfjVscy ,oa VªkUlQjscy vf/kdkj Fks ;k ughaA ;fn vf/kdkj ugha Fks rks leLr Hkwfe efUnj dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ dh tkosA

2& iwoZ fely cUnkscLr ;k vU; jsDMZ ds vuqlkj iqtkjh dkSu dkSu Fks] vc dkSu gS \ D;k VªLV ,DV ds rgr VªLV jftLVMZ gS ;k fdlh l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk iqtkjh ds vf/kdkj fdlh dks iznRr fd;s x;sA bu lHkh rF;ksa dh Nkuchu dj dkuwu bUnzkt djsa vU;Fkk l{ke U;k;ky; ls fu.kZ; gksus ij ml fu.kZ; ds v/khu fjekdZ fy[ks !^^

Thereafter, as per the settlement, the Deity was recorded as owner of the land in question.

3.2. Subsequently, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bali initiated the proceeding and passed the impugned order dated 30.11.1987, whereby the Tehsildar, Desuri was directed to cancel the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner and the private respondent(s), and a fresh entry in relation to the land in question was ordered to be made in the name of the Deity. Against the said impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) (Second), Jodhpur, which was partly allowed vide the impugned order dated 24.06.1993.

3.3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.06.1993, the petitioner preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 26.11.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1956 before the learned BoR, which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2001. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned SDO passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without duly considering the previous judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner regarding