The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for lawful orders and jurisdiction in mutation proceedings and land possession, as well as the necessity to demonstrate the basis of mutation entries before the competent authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction impugned orders dated 09.05.2000 and 27.11.2000 passed by Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) By appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents may kindly be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute.

(c) Any other order, writ, or direction may be passed deemed expedient in the interest of justice.

(d) Writ petition be allowed with costs.”

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that late Shri Lal Singh was the Jagirdar of Village Gudia, Tehsil Bali, District Pali. The land in dispute was entered as Khudkast in the name of Lal Singh when Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1951), came into force and the land in dispute was entered as Siwai Chak. The disputed land was in the possession of Shri Lal Singh and his sons and because of this entry in the revenue records, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, were initiated against the petitioners and Shri Lal Singh, vide order dated 17.11.1970. The Naib Tehsildar ordered for eviction of the said land.

3. Being aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.1970, an appeal was preferred by Shri Lal Singh and the same was decided by the Additional Collector on 23.09.1971 ((Annexure-1). While deciding the appeal, relevant records which were produced before the Naib Tehsildar were examined and while examining the same, the Additional Collector, Pali, came to the conclusion that after perusal of relevant Girdawari pertaining to Samvat Year 2011 and onwards, it is clear that the land in dispute was entered as Khudkast of Shri Lal Singh. It was further observed, that Jagir was resumed in Samvat Year 2015 and before and after the resumption, the land in dispute was in possession of Shri Lal Singh and his sons and consequently it was observed that they were not the trespassers and thus, the appeal was allowed and the order dated 17.10.1970 was set aside.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 23.09.1971 (Annexure-1) an order was passed on 17.01.1976 (Annexure-2) by Tehsildar Bali, District Pali, whereby, proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 were dropped. According to the provisions of law contained in Section 10 of the Act of 1952, the land which stands entered as Khudkast in the name of Jagirdar becomes the Khatedari land. In the present case also, Shri Lal Singh was a Jagirdar of Village Gudia and the land in dispute was entered as Khudkast in his name and in this view of the matter, the Gram Panchayat, opened a mutation as directed by the Tehsildar and entered the land in the dispute as Khatedari of Lal Singh and his sons.

5. One Vijay Singh (respondent No.1) moved an application on 06.09.1980 before the Collector for cancellation of mutation No.30, which was attached by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, made a reference under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and passed a reference order dated 25.04.1989 (Annexure-3) for making reference to the Board of Revenue for cancellation of mutation No.30. The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide order dated 09.05.2000 (Annexure-4), accepted the reference and cancelled the mutation No.30 passed by the Gram Panchayat and being aggrieved of the same, a special appeal under Section 10 of the Act of 1956, was submitted which was heard and rejected by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide order dated 27.11.2000.

6. Being aggrieved of the order dated 09.05.2000 (Annexure-4) and the order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted