JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in REVISION/L.R./2956/2016/DISTRICT PALI (Annexure-13), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(c) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that one Smt. Mohan Kanwar W/o of Late Sagat Singh preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Pali against the respondent no.5 to 18, stating therein that a land comprising khasra nos. 1869, 2264 and 2265 situated in Village Gundoj, Tehsil Pali was possession of the one Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and after the death of Panney Singh, name of Moti Singh (father of respondents no.5 to 8) and Kalyan Singh (father of respondents no.9 to 11) were shown as legal representatives of Late Panney Singh, in respect of the land in question, whereupon, the land in question registered in the name of Moti Singh and Kalyan Singh and mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976 was recorded in the revenue records.

2.1 The learned Additional District Collector-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 25.06.2012 has condoned the delay of 31 years in filing the appeal and while cancelling the mutation entry no. 898 dated 07.01.1976 in the revenue records, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar, Pali, with a direction to make an enquiry regarding the legal representatives of Late Panney Singh and Late Sagat Singh, and thereafter, pass fresh orders after giving proper opportunity of the hearing to all the concerned parties.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2012, the respondent no.2 & 3, claiming themselves to be the bonafide purchasers of the land in question, filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment therein as party, which was was allowed on 15.10.2015. Thereafter, the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 11.04.2016 allowed the appeal and quashed the aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Collector.

2.3. Against the aforementioned order dated 11.04.2016, the respondent no.1 filed a revision petition under Section 84 of the Act of 1956 before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereupon the learned BoR vide order dated 24.08.2023 allowed the said revision and quashed the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, and further directed the Tehsidar, Pali to comply with the aforementioned order dated 25.06.2012, except in regard to the land in respect whereof a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation entry was challenged after a gross delay of 31 years and the same was condoned by the learned Additional District Collector, which is highly illegal and unjustified in law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of challenging the mutation entry in question, Mohan Kanwar was very well aware about the mutation in question because she executed an alleged Will in favour of the respondent no