Clerical errors in land revenue records can be corrected to reflect true ownership, and such corrections should not be interfered with if substantiated.

Order :

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner State against the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

3. Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the respondent was having a piece of khatedari land situated at Khasra No.310 of Village Pal District Jodhpur. The said land was recorded in the name of the respondent in the revenue record, however, on account of clerical mistake, in the revenue record, the entries got changed and the same were recorded in the name of Doli Banam Mahadev Mandir in place of the respondent. On noticing the mistake, the respondent submitted an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. The application preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur vide its order dated 14.05.2014 and a direction to the Tehsildar, Jodhpur to re-record the land of Khasra No.310 ad-measuring 56 bigha 19 biswa in the name of the husband of respondent, which was recorded in the name of Doli Banam Mandir Mahadev Ji due to clerical mistake. This order dated 14.05.2014 was suo motu reviewed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur vide order dated 05.06.2014, wherein although the direction to change the revenue entries ordered vide order dated 14.05.2014 were maintained, however, it was held that the name of the trust i.e. Mahadev Mandir may also be included in the revenue record. The order dated 05.06.2014 was assailed by the respondent by way of filing an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur rejected the appeal filed by the respondent vide its order dated 06.10.2017. Aggrieved against the order dated 06.10.2017, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its order dated 05.02.2020 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and restored the revenue entries in terms of the first order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner State before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the order passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer is incorrect as the learned Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate correct factual and legal aspects of the matter while passing the order dated 05.02.2020. He submits that since the land belongs to the deity, therefore, it has correctly been mentioned in the order dated 05.06.2014 that the name of the trust i.e. “Mandir Mahadev Ji” Trust be included in the revenue record. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner-State may be allowed and the order dated 05.02.2020 so passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Khatedar submits that the Sub Divisional Officer after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and documents produced before it has correctly allowed the application preferred by the respondent under section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and after noticing the fact that the land was already mutated in the name of the respondent as khatedar of the land and because of some typographical/clerical error, the land in question has been mutated in the name of “Doli Banam Mandir Mahadev Ji” which is sought to be corrected and mutated in the name of the respondent. He submits that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 14.05.2014. Learned counsel submits that learned Board of Revenue after appreciation of the facts has restored the order dated 14.05.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that earlier on three occasions, the same question was raised before this Court and on all the three occasions, t