[2026:RJ-JD:13556]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18292/2018 State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Limba S/o Udaji Gameti, Residing At Bujhada, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

2. Upvan Sanrakshak North, Forest Division North, Range East, Gulbaug, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, G.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

12/03/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner–State against order dated 05.07.2017 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby second appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1 under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (“LR Act”) was allowed and order dated 30.09.2010 passed by Additional Collector, Girwa, District Udaipur as well as order dated 29.09.2011 passed by Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur were set aside.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that land bearing Arazi No. 10, admeasuring 2 bighas, and Arazi No.17, admeasuring 1 bigha 10 biswas, situated at village Bujhada, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, was allotted to Respondent No. 1 vide allotment order dated 13.02.1983 passed by District Collector, Udaipur. Pursuant thereto, said land was registered in revenue records in the name of Respondent No. 1 through Mutation No. 710 dated 31.12.1983.

2.1 Subsequently, during resettlement, earlier revenue entries came to be altered, as a result of which Araziat constituting the land in question were recorded as Belanaam and Mahakma Jangalat, and name of Respondent No. 1 was not reflected in the revenue record. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 136 of the LR Act seeking correction of revenue entries on the basis of aforementioned allotment order dated 13.02.1983 and Mutation No. 710 dated 31.12.1983.

2.2 Said application of Respondent No.1 was dismissed by Additional Collector, Girwa, vide order dated 30.09.2010, on the ground that applicant / Respondent No. 1 had failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish his rights over the land in question or to prove his possession thereon.

2.3 Against said order dated 30.09.2010, Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2011. It was observed that the allotment of 1983 to appellant-respondent No. 1 was subject to certain conditions and that appellant had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the fulfillment of said conditions. In absence of the same, Additional Divisional Commissioner held that continuous and uninterrupted possession of appellant was not established.

2.4 Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred a second appeal before Board of Revenue, which, vide order dated 05.07.2017, allowed the appeal, set aside orders passed by the courts below and directed restoration of name of Respondent No. 1 in the revenue record in respect of the land in question. It was held that in view of the material available on record, possession and right of Respondent no. 1 over the land in question stood duly established. 2.5 Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner-State has preferred present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner–State, Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC, submits that Board of Revenue has erred in interfering with concurrent findings recorded by courts below. It is contended that during resettlement proceedings the land in question came to be recorded as Belanaam Kism Pahad and Mahakma Jangalat in the names of UIT, Udaipur and Forest Department, and therefore the claim raised by Respondent No.1 does not merely involve correction of revenue entries but rather amounts to determination of title, which falls beyond the scope of powers exercisable under Section 136 of the LR Act.

3.1 It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has failed to discharge the burden