ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"1. The impugned orders i.e. order dated 6.2.2020 (Annexure-8) of Board of Revenue, order dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure-7) of Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali and order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure-3) of the Assistant Collector (SDO), Sirohi may be quashed and set aside and they may be declared to be illegal and contrary to law and facts and may be given effect as if they were never passed.

2. That the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondent No.1 to 7 may also be dismissed with costs.

3. That the petitioners may be allowed to continue in possession of the land in question.

4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may be granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. Writ petition may be allowed with costs."

2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit under Section 54 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') for division stating therein that the respondents-plaintiffs and petitioners-defendants were joint khatedars of the land measuring 28 bighas 3 biswas of Khasra No.56 of village Devli, Patwar Circle Badgaon, Tehsil Sheoganj and plaintiff-respondent No.1 has got 1/4th share and plaintiffs-respondent Nos.2 to 6 have 1/4th share and the defendants-petitioners are having 1/4th share. It was also stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 7 and petitioners-defendants dug a well and all the khatedars used to draw water from the well as per their turn. There was also a joint kotdi under their joint possession. The petitioners-defendants started obstructing in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 7 and also started construction over the site and thus, it became difficult to continue jointly.

3. The petitioner-defendants filed their written statement and submitted that they are the sole khatedars and owner of the land and the well was in fact got dug by one late Shri. Jora Ram after availing loan from Punjab National Bank, which was repaid by them. When the water fell short, the boring was done by them for which expenses were borne by them. It was also submitted that the said Kotdi was constructed by late Shri. Jora Ram and the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 7 were never in possession.

4. The petitioners-defendants also submitted a counter claim stating therein that for the last 50 years late Shri. Jora Ram and after his death, petitioners-defendants are in possession of the land and they have been cultivating the land since them. It was also stated that Virda Ram, Meetha Ram and Sankla Ram (brothers of defendant-petitioner No.1) got their names included as co-tenant and after their death the plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 to 7 were never in possession. It was also stated that the suit was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 63(1)(ii) read with Section 214 of the Act of 1955 and Section 27 of the LIMITATION ACT .

5. The Assistant Collector (SDO), Sirohi (for short, 'the SDO'), based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

^^¼1½ vk;k oknhx.k dh ekStk nsoyh iVokj {ks= cMxkao ds [kljk ucaj 56 jdck 24 ch?kk 3 fcLok [kkrsnkjh d`f"k Hkwfe vk;h gS ftlls oknhx.k dk 1@4 fgLlk 2 ls 6 dk 1@4 o 7 dk 1@4 fgLls ds [kkrsnkj d`"kd gSA

¼2½ ;g oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ls jktLo jsdMZ esa ntZ fgLls vuqlkj d`f"k Hkwfe dk cVaokM djus dk vf/kdkj gSA

¼3½ ;g fd oknhx.k ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fgLls vuqlkj la;qDr dqavk dh fढph cU/kokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

¼4½ vk;k izfroknhx.k d`f"k Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkjh ?kks"k.kk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

¼5½ vk;k izfroknhx.k dk Lo;a vius [kpZ ls dqavk ca/kokus o oknhx.k dqa, ls fढph izkIr