A fair hearing is essential in legal proceedings; lack of opportunity renders judgments void and necessitates reconsideration.

Order :

By way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that:-

a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the writ petition filed by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 may kindly be allowed.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned Judgment dated 30.01.2018 (Annx-21) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal/Decree/TA/4723/2015/Jodhpur titled as "Smt. Hawa Kanwar & ors. Vs. Bhom Singh & ors." and the Judgments and Decrees dated 17.07.2015 (Annx-19) passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur in Appeal/Decree/ Jodhpur/ 038/2014 titled as "LR's of Late Kayna Singh & ors. Vs. Bhom Singh & ors." as well as dated 07.05.2014 (Annx-15) passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer cum Assistant Collector, Shergarh, District Jodhpur in Revenue Original Suit No. 41/2004 titled as "Bhom Singh & ors. Vs. kalyan Singh & ors." may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, be quashed and set aside.

c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the revenue suit (Annx.11) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs may also kindly be ordered to be dismissed as prayed for throughout with costs.

d) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the consequential Mutation Entry No. 923 dated 12.05.2014 made in the Mutation Register of Village Gumanpura (Annx. 16) may also kindly be quashed and set aside.

e) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

f) Cost of the writ petition may please be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Briefly stated facts of the case as disclosed by the petitioners in the present writ petition are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a revenue suit under Sections 88 , 188 and 53 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (the Act of 1955) against the petitioners/defendants as well as respondents/defendants before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Shergarh, District Jodhpur (the learned S.D.O.) bearing revenue original suit No.41/2004 titled as “Bhom Singh and Ors. v. Kalyan Singh & Ors.” stating inter alia that at the time of settlement ½^nd share in the land situated in Khasra No.918 ad measuring 215 bigha, Khasra No.925 ad measuring 336.18 bigha and in Khasra No.925 ad measuring 9.14 bigha was wrongly entered in the name of forefathers of the petitioners/defendants, whereas, they were having possession and cultivation over ¼^th share only which they had sold. In the suit, it was further pleaded that the ancestors of respondents/plaintiffs were in possession of the remaining land of disputed Khasras and had also paid the lagaan thereof. The respondents/plaintiffs thus prayed before the learned S.D.O. for giving relief of declaration, partition and permanent injunction with respect to the land in dispute. The learned S.D.O. after completing the trial, vide judgment dated 07.05.2014 decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs and ordered that the respondents/plaintiffs are declared khatedar tenant of 215 bigha land out of total 346.12 bigha land of Khasra No.918 and Khasra No.925 with a further direction to delete the names of the petitioners/defendants from the revenue record and by way of permanent injunction, a direction was further issued that the petitioners/defendants will not interfere in the possession and cultivation of the respondents/plaintiffs over the said 215 bigha land either directly or through any other means.

2. The Appeal No.038/14 titled as “LRs of Kalyan Singh v. Bhom Singh & Ors