JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that in this case the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer [the Board] has been justified in rejecting the baseless reference as made by the Collector, Jodhpur, and this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance. 2. In the suit for declaration and consequential reliefs as filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 88, 92-A and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ['the Act of 1955'] asserting their rights over the land comprised in Khasras Nos. 709 and 710 at village Chokha, Tehsil Jodhpur, in all measuring 25 bighas and 6 biswas (Revenue Suit No. 25/1992), the learned Assistant Collector, Jodhpur took the evidence adduced by the parties and, by the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2000 (Annex. P/1), declared the plaintiffs entitled to the khatedari rights in the land in question and issued consequential injunction against the defendant State not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs but of course, observed that due lagan be recovered from the plaintiffs by way of demand. 3. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree aforesaid, the Tehsildar, Jodhpur moved an application to the Collector, Jodhpur for making a reference to the Board under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. Though a so-called copy of the application has been placed on record as Annexure P/2 (at pages 20-22), it is rather surprising to notice that in an entirely irresponsible manner, some other application in relation to some other case has been filed with this writ petition. Be that as it may, the Collector, Jodhpur by the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annex.P/2A) proceeded to make a reference to the Board of Revenue particularly on the opinion that the decree in question suffered from illegality on three counts, viz., (i) that the trial Court has not considered the statement of DW-1 Dhanna Ram to the effect that in Khasra Girdawari for Svt. Years 2010 to 2019, nothing was stated of cultivation by the plaintiff; (ii) that the plaintiffs have failed to establish co-relation of the documents Ex.17 to 30 with the disputed land; and (iii) that the plaintiffs have not filed any proof of depositing the amount of land revenue. 4. Years 2010 to 2019, nothing was stated of cultivation by the plaintiff; (ii) that the plaintiffs have failed to establish co-relation of the documents Ex.17 to 30 with the disputed land; and (iii) that the plaintiffs have not filed any proof of depositing the amount of land revenue. 4. By the impugned order dated 27.2.2003 (Annex.P/3), the Board has rejected the reference so made while observing, inter alia, that the long possession of the non-applicants on the disputed land was adequately proved by the land records and corroborated by the oral evidence; that there was no bar against accrual of khatedari rights in the present case; that the Assistant Collector had rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and on the basis of old adverse possession of the plaintiffs for more than 30 years, as evidence by the authenticated copies of the land records, had lawfully passed the order and decree dated 18.3.2000; and that the impugned decree was not liable to be reversed by way of reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. 5. Seeking to assail the order so passed by the Board it has been attempted to be argued that the decree in question had been passed essentially on oral evidence; and khatedari rights could not have been conferred merely on the basis of oral evidence. It has also been suggested that the documents as produced by the plaintiffs are not identifiable with the land in question nor cogent evidence has been adduced if the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in question as khatedars nor even proof of deposit of the amount of land revenue has been produced. 6. The submissions as sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners hardly make out a case for setting aside the considered decree passed by the learned Revenue Court after appreciation of evidence by way of reference proceedings. The decree in question has not been shown suffering from some ex facie illegality, impropriety, or want of jurisdiction to make out a case for interference in the reference proceedings. The reference as made by the Collector was entirely unjustified and the learned Member of the Board, after appropriate and adequate consideration of the law applicable to the case and so also the material on record has rightly rejected the same. The reference as made by the Collector was entirely unjustified and the learned Member of the Board, after appropriate and adequate consideration of the law applicable to the case and so also the material on record has rightly rejected the same. This Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error manifest in the matter so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 7. It may be pointed out that prima facie even the suggestions as made on behalf of the petitioner against the decree in question do not appear carrying substance. The learned trial court has, inter alia, found that in the Dhal Banch (Ex.17) lagan dues were stated against father of the plaintiffs for Svt. Year 2012 and then, even in the Dhal Banch (Ex.26) for Svt. Year, 2026 and amount has been shown recovered from the father of the plaintiffs towards lagan payable. The learned trial Court wondered as to how land revenue would have been considered due against the father of the plaintiffs if he was not in cultivatory possession ? The learned trial court inter alia, observed,- ysfdu <+kyckaN izn'kZ&17 laor 2012 ij xkSj djs rks ;g Li"V gS fd oknhx.k ds firk gjh;k oYn lkaor tkV ij cdk;k yxku laor 2012 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ;fn oknhx.k ds firk dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij laor 2012 esa dCtk dk'r ugha gksrk rks muds uke ij laor 2012 esa yxku cdk;k dk bUnzkt ugha gksrkA burk gh ugha laor 2022 esa <+ky ckaN izn'kZ&26 esa 344@& :i;s oknhx.k ds firk ls olwyh crk;s x;s gaS rFkk laor 2024 esa Hkh yxku olwyh crk;k x;k gS tks bl ckr dk lcwr gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k ds firk o nknk dk dCtk dk'r vfrdzehZ ds :i esa u gksdj fVusUV dh gSfl;r ls jgk gSA 8. There had been other pieces of evidence placed on record prima facie showing that the predecessor of the plaintiffs was subjected to payment of land revenue; and so far connectivity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs with the land in question is concerned, this aspect seems not to have been put into dispute as such before the trial Court; and rather, the learned trial Court has observed that the witness of the defendant-petitioner DW-1 admitted that the copies of Dhal Banch as produced by the plaintiffs were the certified copies issued from the tehsil office and were related with the said Khasras Nos. 709 and 710. In any case, when the learned trial Court came to a specific conclusion in favour of the plaintiffs after appreciation of the evidence available on record that included documentary evidence too, it cannot be said outright that the decree suffers from any error apparent on face of the record or from want of jurisdiction or any ex facie illegality or impropriety so as to call for interference in reference proceedings. 9. Viewed from any angle, this Court is satisfied that the learned Member of the Board was perfectly justified in rejecting the baseless reference as made in this case; and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned Government Counsel in the last made a submission that the petitioner's right to challenge the decree in question by taking resort to remedy of appeal in accordance with law may be safeguarded. This Court would not like to make any comment in this regard particularly for the reason that the petitioner itself chose to move the application for reference and prosecuted such remedy and then chose to file this writ petition after the learned Member of the Board found the matter was not worth interference in reference under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. This Court would only clarify that whatever observations have been made herein are essentially related to the subject matter of consideration in this petition, i.e., the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.2.2003. As noticed, the said order called for no interference.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******