The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Revenue Appellate Authority's well-reasoned findings based solely on the non-production of evidence, which was not a deliberate act of concealment.

ORDER :

1. This is the case of reversal of judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.20/2007, in exercise of its jurisdiction as First Appellate Authority, by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal/TA/903/2010/Jaipur vide its judgment dated 18^th July, 2012, which has been impugned by petitioners in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. The revenue suit, filed by petitioners for declaring resumption of their Khatedari rights and protection of cultivatory possession, was decreed by Revenue Appellate Authority but came to be dismissed, as a result of impugned judgment, passed by Board of Revenue.

2. The relevant facts, in nutshell, recapitulated from the record are that:-

2.1 petitioners instituted a revenue suit in the month of February, 1999 for declaration of their Khatedari rights and protection of their cultivatory possession over the land of Khasra No.826/866 measuring 1.20 hectare situated at village Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

2.2 The revenue suit was filed under the provision of Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the RTA, 1955”), against the Government of Rajasthan through concerned Tehsildar and Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur stating inter alia that the land in question has erroneously been recorded as sewai chak (Government land) in the name of Jaipur Development Authority (for short ”the JDA”) at the time of settlement in samvat – 2015 whereas the land in question was in the khatedari of their predecessors since time of their grandfather namely Jeevan alias Jeeva son of Bakhsha and same has been in continuous and uninterrupted cultivatory possession of petitioners.

2.3 It was inter-alia pleaded that khasra No. 826/866 ment from khasra No. 436 (5 bigha) which was part of khasra no 339/414 measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa; at the time of settlement proceedings in Samvat–2015, land of khasra No. 339/414 came to be segregated in several parts including khasra no. 436, 436/2, 438 and although the land of 438 (67 bigha 11 biswa) and land of khasra No. 436/2 (5 bigha) came to be recorded in the name of father of petitioners namely Moharu son of Jeevan but land of khasra No. 436, under erroneous pretext came to be entered as sewai chak (government land) in the name of JDA which is absolutely illegal and unauthorized mutation entry since it is well established legal position that in the settlement proceeding, Settlement Officer is not authorized to confer khatedari rights nor on account of erroneous entry during the settlement proceedings in the revenue record, khatedari rights of petitioners in respect of land of khasra No. 436 could be adversely affected more so when petitioners, since time of their grandfather namely Jeevan have been in continuous and uninterrupted cultivatory possession of such land.

2.4 Therefore, petitioners sought protection of their cultivatory possession by declaring the land in question Khatedari of petitioners, which was in fact already vested to petitioners since time of their grandfather being recorded Khatedar of the land of khasra No.339/414 in the revenue record of Jamabandi.

3. The Government of Rajasthan, in its written statement, neither questioned the hierarchy of petitioners being descendants of late Jeevan S/o Bakhsa, in whose name the land of Khasra No.339/414 (measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa) along with other lands were recorded in the revenue record of Chakbandi from Samvat-1987 to 2003 nor disputed the cultivatory possession of petitioners, rather the State Government categorically stated that prior to settlement of Samvat-2015, land of Khasra No.436 (5 bigha) was not recorded as Sewai Chak (government land).

4. In the written statement submitted by the JDA, resort of Section 54 of the JDA Act, 1981 was taken, stating inter alia that the land in question Khasra No.826/866 is recorded in the revenue record as government land in the name of JDA, hence, pe