JUDGMENT 1. - This case has a checkered history. 2. The petitioner was in possession as trespasser on three bighas agricultural land of Khasra No. 203 MIN situated in village Devli. Proceedings Under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated against, him as back as in the year 1969 and after receiving the report of the Halka Patwari the Additional Tehsildar, Girwa by order Anx. 1 came to the conclusion that he was recorded as trespasser in the concerned register of Patwari since 1958 and instead of proceedings Under Section 91 of the Act he must be given Khatedari right. However, no steps were taken on Anx. 1 but the proceedings Under Section 91 of the Act were initiated time and again. Vide Anx. 4 dated 9.5.1994 Tehsildar, Girwa after discussing the matter in all details came to the conclusion that on the basis of Anx. 1 which is a certified photocopy issued by Tehsildar, Girwa no rights can be conferred on the above land in favour of the petitioner. The concerned file was also reported to have been weeded out. By then the petitioner was pursuing the matter. He was held trespasser and asked to deposit 40% of the revenue. Aggrieved against the order Anx. 4 the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Collector, Udaipur which was also dismissed vide Anx. 5. Appeals filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the Board of Revenue, Ajmer were also dismissed vide Anx. 6 and Anx. 8 respectively. Hence this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that even if Tehsildar, Girwa may not have power to confer Khatedari rights to the petitioner, however, the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land even as trespasser since the year 1958, Khatedari rights should have been conferred to him after 1969. 4. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned orders stating that a trespasser acquires no Khatedari right and the Tehsildar, Girwa had no such power and that the petitioner has never moved any application before proper authorities for confirming Khatedari rights on him and that the present status of the suit land has been changed and the land has been subsequently allotted to the police department who has raised their construction and are using it for residential purposes. 5. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. What was to be decided by the courts below was whether the petitioner was in occupation of the suit land since the year 1958 or not? Even if he was a trespasser Khatedari rights could have been accrued to him by notification of 1969. If the original file of Anx. 1 has been weeded out, that was not the default of the petitioner. Anx. 1 has not been held to be a forged document by any of the courts below. However, it has not been considered because the original file No. 29/256 of 1969 has been weeded out and that Tehsildar has no power to confer Khatedari rights. What was to be considered by the courts below was whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit land as trespasser since the year 1958 or not? The above fact was very much mentioned not only in Anx. 1 but also in the Najayaj Kabja register of the concerned Patwari and proceedings Under Section 91 of the Act has been initiated time and again which indicates that up to the year 1993 the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. Even if subsequently the land was allotted to the police department and they have raised their construction, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of getting equivalent alternate suitable land. 7. Consequently, there is merit in this petition. The same is accepted. All the orders of the courts below are set aside and the respondents are directed to allot three bighas agricultural suitable land to the petitioner in the same village or at the nearest available point after due procedure according to law.Writ Petition allowed - Order of courts below set aside - Direction given to allot alternate land to petitioner. *******