Hon'ble ASOPA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof for quashing of the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I dated 2.9.1996 (Anx.8) and those of Board of Revenue dated 31.1.2003 (Anx.13) and 11.3.2003 (Anx.14) and has further prayed that the suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as `the petitioner’) against the defendant non petitioners No.6 to 16 may kindly be ordered to be decreed. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case, are as under: 3. That the petitioner filed a revenue suit for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendant-non-petitioners regarding 60 Bighas of land situated in Jamdoli, Tehsil and district Jaipur which had been allotted to Yasin Khan, father of the petitioner, on account of his being a soldier, by the erstwhile Jaipur State which had wrongly been entered partly as Sawai Chak and partly as Charagarh and had been further wrongly placed at the disposal of the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.). The Patta issued by the erstwhile Jaipur State in favour of Yasin Khan, father of the petitioner,is on record as Annexure-3, who died on 8.5.1992. Subsequently, on the strength of the Will, suit was filed by the petitioner on 04.05.1994 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I. 4. J.D.A. filed written statement denying all facts and further contending that since the suit land had been partly entered as Sawai Chak and partly as Charagah, the same vested in the JDA under section 64 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (in short `the J.D.A.Act’). The Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I framed five Issues out of which Issue No.1 was with regard to the allotment of land to the father of the petitioner and other Issues relates regarding correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the petitioner’s father Yasin Khan Soldier was entered as tenant of the suit land prior to new settlement. However, remaining Issues were decided against the petitioner (plaintiff). 5. The petitioner filed first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein Gopal Sharma was appointed as the Commissioner on 9.6.1996 for inspection of the site and for report about possession of the disputed land. However, remaining Issues were decided against the petitioner (plaintiff). 5. The petitioner filed first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein Gopal Sharma was appointed as the Commissioner on 9.6.1996 for inspection of the site and for report about possession of the disputed land. The Commissioner inspected the site on 20.6.1998 and on 29.6.1998, he submitted report before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur stating that four Pucca rooms stood constructed in Khasra No.119 and a Board in the name of `Nisar Ahmed Fouzi Krishi Farm, Jamdoli’ was there, and one room of bricks also stood constructed on Khasra No. 119 and 8-10 fruit trees were standing on the same. 6. On 3.6.2002, the Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the first appeal filed by the petitioner and decreed the suit holding that the Settlement Department had no authority to change the previous entries and to record the disputed land partly as Sawai Chak and partly as Charagarh. The Revenue Appellate Authority also confirmed the finding of fact given by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur-I on Issue No.1 i.e. regarding allotment of the land in question to the father of the petitioner and consequent entry in the name of Yasin Khan in respect of the suit land prior to the settlement of Samwat Year 2015 and the same entry should have been repeated by the Settlement Department. 7. Against the said judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, second appeal was filed by the private respondent and the JDA. The Board of Revenue reversed the findings of the Revenue Appellate Authority on Issues No.2 to 5 by holding that the Khatedari right is neither absolute nor in-alienable nor unchangeable nor permanent and continuation of the same would be regulated by the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Tenancy Act’) and further, in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to prove his continuous cultivatory possession which has been ignored by the Revenue Appellate authority. It has also been held by the Board of Revenue that simply because the State has not been able to establish the fact that how land was presumed to have been abandoned and vested in the State, is of no help to the petitioner. It has also been held by the Board of Revenue that simply because the State has not been able to establish the fact that how land was presumed to have been abandoned and vested in the State, is of no help to the petitioner. It has also been held that it is not for the person to whom the land is allotted, to prove that how he became khatedar of the land held by the petitioner and burden of proof is on the petitioner that he still continues to be the Khatedar, therefore, failure or negative to prove the same by defendants would not give rise to any conclusion that the Khatedari rights of the allottees automatically came to an end. 8. Respondents No.4 and 5 have filed reply to the writ petition and respondent No.16 has filed affidavit although wrongly referring himself as the petitioner, supporting the judgment of the Board of Revenue and further denying the averments of the writ petition more particularly provisions of law relating to abandonment of the tenancy which according to the petitioner has not been followed in this case as referred in Section 60, 61 and 63 of the Tenancy Act. 9. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly held that settlement authorities are not empowered to change the previous entries without the order of the competent authority and the Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in ignoring the said legal position. In support of the said submission, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Idan vs. State of Rajasthan and another (RRT 2001(1)244 para 3, Mst.Ladhi vs. Bhura Ram (RRD 1983 364, paras 7 to 9),Om Prakash and others vs.State of Raj. and others (RRD 1993 44, para 7), and Bishan Singh vs.Magan Singh and others (RRD 2001 5 para 7). The relevant paras of the aforesaid citations are as follows: Para 3 of Idan vs.State of Raj. “3.There can be no dispute to the settled legal preposition that the Settlement Department has no competence to change the kind of the land and the rights of the tenure holderw nor it can change the revenue entries or rights nor it has the power to confer Khatedari rights on any person. “3.There can be no dispute to the settled legal preposition that the Settlement Department has no competence to change the kind of the land and the rights of the tenure holderw nor it can change the revenue entries or rights nor it has the power to confer Khatedari rights on any person. The authority of the Settlement Department extens only to the normal settlement operations and entries in previous settlement have to be repeated. Failure on its part to ascertain how change in subsequent entries occurred without order of the Competent Authority makes the findings perverse.” Relevant portion of Paras 7 to 9 Mst.Ladhi vs.Bhura Ram “Settlement – Powers of settlement authorities – Application for entering land on basis of long possession and a decree of SDO u/s 175 R.T.Act, accepted by A.S.O. where land was in khatedari of another person – Held order of A.S.O. Could not be based on decree of competent court since decree of S.D.O. Set aside in review – Settlement authorities have no power to grant khatedari rights – Settlement authorities, not empowered to change any entry in previous settlement records unless change occurred as a resuslt of an order of competent authority or acquisition or transfer, certified by mutation order." Para 7 of Om Prakash and others vs.State of Raj. and others “7.Even if we lok at the facts of the case it is clear that Saligram had purchased this property from private persons. This property was mutated in his name. It is also clear from the document on record that it was purchased for constructing a dharmshala. If such dharamshala was not constructed it would not give a cause of action to the State to declare this property as siwai chak. This property was not allotted by the State with certain conditions, breach of which may entitle the State to resume the land. The Settlement Department has no right to change the kind of the land or the rights of the parties without any orders of the competent court. This land was recorded in the Khatedari of private persons. Without competent court's orders Settlement Department oculd not have recorded it as a `siwai chak' land. The Settlement Department has no right to change the kind of the land or the rights of the parties without any orders of the competent court. This land was recorded in the Khatedari of private persons. Without competent court's orders Settlement Department oculd not have recorded it as a `siwai chak' land. In our opinion, the order of the Settlement Department declaring this property as siwai Chak was void ab initio and as such it was not necessary for the respondents to get this order set aside or to get it declared as their khatedari property before applying under section 6 of the Act....” 10. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that a person who cannot show as to in which capacity he entered upon or cultivated the disputed land, shall be deemed to be a trespasser qua the Khatedar tenant and in support of the same, he placed reliance on Kaji Lateef vs. Khema (RRD 1987 2 para 16). Para 16 reads as under: “16.A question arises in this connection who can challenge the order of A.S.O. Passed on 8.9.59 (Ex.P.7).We think that a trespasser cannot challenge the order and a recorded khatedar tenant can bring a suit for ejectment under section 183 R.T. Act. In our view it was Thana or the heirs of Mubarak Hussain who could challenge the order of A.S.O. (Ex.P.7) because this order Ex.P.7 has been passed against them. So far as the defendant is concerned he is a trespasser on the land as held above. So in our view the defendant cannot challenge the order of the A.S.O.(Ex.P.7). Thus, we refrain to examine the legality of the order Ex.P.7.” 11. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is for the defendant to prove that he has right to continue in possession, in support of which he placed reliance on Chhotu vs. Smt.Kasturi (RRD 1987 466, Para 5). Relevant portion of para 5 of the above judgment is as under: “5. A perusal ....lands. As has been held in 1974 RRD 381, it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and for the defendant to prove that he has a right to continue in possession. The respondents' predecessor Harnath was a recorded khatedar of these lands. The appellant has failed to prove his rightful possession over the disputed land. A perusal ....lands. As has been held in 1974 RRD 381, it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and for the defendant to prove that he has a right to continue in possession. The respondents' predecessor Harnath was a recorded khatedar of these lands. The appellant has failed to prove his rightful possession over the disputed land. The basis of his claim is the unregistered sale deed on plain paper which cannot be relied upon when transfer of possession and passing of consideration is denied by plaintiff Harnath....” 12. Counsel for the respondents, apart from supporting the judgment of the Board of Revenue, has submitted that there was no allotment of Khasra No.66/1, 74 and 75 to the father of the petitioner, although the relief was claimed with regard to the correction of entries in respect of the said Khasra numbers and further the suit was not for recovery of possession and even if the it was to be taken as suit for possession, then the same was barred by limitation. Lastly, counsel submitted that no cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, counsel for the respondents cited the judgments titled and reported in -Swamy Atmananda and others vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others (2005) 10 SCC 51 ), Onkar Lal vs.Rewa Puri, RLW 2000(2) Raj.757, Smt.Kali vs.Smt.Ganga RLR 1985 159, Kanti Lal vs.Smt.Shanti Devi & others RLW 1997(2) Raj.1099), Madanlal vs.Durgadutt RLW 1957 441, Krishna Kanwar vs.Brijmohan RLW 1971 492, Gauri Shanker & ors.vs.State and others (RLR 2000(2)121, State of Rajasthan vs.Mohan Singh and others 2000 RRC 38, Bal Kishan vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer and others WLC 2000(4) 735, Deepa vs.State of Rajasthan and others (1996) 1 SCC 612 , Man Singh vs.Heersingh & ors. (1994(4) RRC 12), Pukh Raj and others vs.State of Rajasthan and others AIR 2000 Raj.89, State of Raj. vs.Smt.Kunpawatji RRD 1989 327. 13. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. 14. (1994(4) RRC 12), Pukh Raj and others vs.State of Rajasthan and others AIR 2000 Raj.89, State of Raj. vs.Smt.Kunpawatji RRD 1989 327. 13. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered rival submission of counsel for the parties. 14. Before proceeding further, I would like to refer and quote the issues framed by the Sub Divisional Officer, (pages 90-91), finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer (page 91-92), relevant portion of the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, relevant portion of the judgment of the Board of Revenue in paras 13 to 16 and Sec.60,61 and 63 of Chapter V Surrender, Abandonment & Extinction, Surrender of tenancies of the Tenancy Act. The same are as under: Issues framed by the Sub Divisional Officer ^^rudh ua- 1 % vk;k —f"k Hkwfe l fcdk [kljk uEcj 73@1@3 jdck 35 ch?kk] [kljku~ 73@1@1@1 jdck 5 fcLok [kljk uEcj 76 jdck 1 ch?kk 15 fcLok [kljku 77@1 jdck 22 ch?kk 8 fcLok [kljku 79 jdck 12 fcLok dqy fdrk 5 jdck 60 ch?kk Hkwfe oknh ds firk ;klhu [kka dks lSfud gksus ds ukrs rRdkyhu t;iqj fjk;lr jktdh; fu;eksa ds vUrxZr xzke tkeMksyh o t;iqj esa vykWV gqbZ Fkh ftldh [kkrsnkjh dk bUnzkt rRcdkyhu tekcUnh esa ntZ gSA -----ctqEesoknh rudh ua- 2 % vk;k nkSjkus lSVyesaV 2012-15 esa mä Hkwfe ds u;s uEcj Mkys x;s u;s [kljk 120 jdck 1 ch?kk 17 fcLok 121 jdck 1 ch?kk 17 fcLok 119 jdck 27 ch?kk 10 fcLok] 125 5 ch?kk 17 fcLok] 126 jdck 12 fcLok] 128 jdck 4 ch?kk 3 fcLok] 122 jdck 4 ch?kk 15 fcLok] 124 jdck 5 ch?kk 8 fcLok] 127 jdck 4 ch?kk 18 fcLok] 129 jdck 3 ch/kk 2 fcLok ftUgsa flok;pd ntZ dj fn;k x;kA -----ctqEesoknh rudh la- 3 % vk;k bu u;s uEcjksa dks flok;pd esa ntZ dj fn;k rFkk dqN uEcj pkjkxkg esa ntZ dj fn;s x;s ftldh vf/kdkj lSVyesaV foHkkx dks guha Fkk blfy, oknh ml bUnzkt dks cnyokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA -----ctqEesoknh rudh ua- 4 % vk;k mijksä rudh ua-2 esa of.kZr Hkwfe tks fd flok;pd ntZ tks xbZ dks izfroknhx.k 2 y- 8 ds uke [kkrsnkjh esa xyrh ls ntZ dj fn;k x;k ;g bUnzkt oknh ds fgrksa ds fo:) csvlj gS blfy, [kkrsnkjh bUnzkt dks nq:Lr djkus dk vf/kdkj oknh oknh dks gSA -----ctqEesoknh rudh ua- 5 % vk;k /kkjk 34 t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr tks Hkwfe izfroknh ua- 8 ds uke ntZ gks xbZ gS mlesa vc dksbZ n[kyUnkth ugha dh tk ldrhA -----izfroknh rudh ua- 6 % vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA -----ctqEesoknh 8- nknjlhA -----ctqEesoknh** Finding on Issues No.1 to 8 recorded by the S.D.O. ^^oknh us vius i{k esa ckcw [kka iq= lqHkjkrh] edlwn [kka iw= dksy[kka vCnqy lyke iq= tgwj eksgEen ,oa Lo;a oknh ds c;ku djk;s gSA geus i=koyh esa miyC/k fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.kksa dh cgl Hkh lquhA i=koyh dk dk;e dh xbZ rudh;kr dk bdtkbZ :i ls bl izdkj fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA oknh }kjk is'k fd;s x;s vkoaVu iÍk ,oa tekcUnh [krkSuh xzke tkeMksyh rglhy t;iqj la- 2008-2011 ls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd vkjkth [kljk uEcj 73@2@1@3] jdck 35 ch?kk] 73@2@1@1@1@2 jdck 5 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 76 jdck 1 ch?kk 15 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 77@1 jdck 22 ch/kk 8 fcLok] rFkk [kljk uEcj 79] jdck 12 fcLok dqy fdrk 5 dqy jdck 60 ch?kk ftuds u;s uEcj Øe'k% 119] 120] 121] 122] 124] 125] 126] 127] 128] 129] jdck 60 ch/kk esa —"kd ds :i esa lksYtj ;klhu[kka dk uke gSA bl izdkj ls ;g rudh ua-1 oknh ds i{k esa fl) gksrh gS] fdUrq ;g rF; Hkh fl) gksrk gS fd nkSjkus lSVyesaV la- 2012-15 esa mä Hkwfe ds u;s uEcj Mkys x;sA ftuesa ls [kljk uecj 120 jdck 1 ch/kk 17 fcLok] 121 jdck 1 ch/kk 17 fcLok] 119 jdck 27 ch?kk 10 fcLok] 125 jdck 5 ch?kk 17 fcLok] 124 djck 5 ch?kk 10 fcLok] 127 jdck 4 ch?kk 18 fcLok] 129 jdck 3 ch?kk 2 fcLok dks flok;pd ntZ dj fn;k x;k o dqN uEcj pkjkxkg esa ntZ dj fn;k x;k rFkk dqN Hwkfe izfroknh la- 2 ls 8 ds uke ntZ djk nh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij ;g fl) gksrk gs fd ;|fi la- 2008-11 dh tekcUnh esa oknh dk uke ntZ gS fdUrq oknh }kjk izLrqr fjdkMZ ls ;g dgh fl) ugha gksrk gS fd oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ij dkfct jgk gSA laor~ 2012-15 dh [kljk fxjnkohj esa 73@2@1@1@2 jdck 4 ch?kk 10 fcLo esa bZlj oYn jsoM dkSe ehuk [kqndk'r] 73@2@1@3 jdck 35 ch/kk esa —"kd dk uke ;khu [kka vafdr gS fdUrq dk'rdkj ds :i esa ukFkw oYn nsok ehuk rFkk [kkaxk oYn fxj/kkjh ehuk vafdr gSA blh izdkj [kljk uEcj 76 jdck 1 ch/kk 15 fcLok rFkk 79 esa —"kd ;klhu [kka dk uke ntZ gS tcfd dk'rdkj x.ks"k oxSjgk ntZ blds lkFk gh izfroknh la-1 yxk;r 7 ds i{k esa [kkrsnkjh ntZ gksus ds i'pkr Hhk dbZ o"kksZ rd oknh us bl lanHkZ esa bUnzkt nq:Lrh gsrq dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ij u rks dkfct gh [TRUNCATED] Abandonment – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) a tenant who ceases to cultivate and leaves the neighborhood shall not lose his interest in his holding if he leaves in charge thereof a person responsible for payment of rent as it falls due and gives written notice t the landholder of such arrangement. (2) If the person so left in-charge is a person - (i) on whom, in the event of the tenant's death, the tenant's interest would devolve, or (ii) who is to manage the holding for the benefit of the person on whom, in the event of the tenant's death, the tenant's interest would devolve, the tenant shall on expiry of a period of seven years lose his interest in his holding unless he, within such period, resumes cultivation thereof, and such interwst shall devolve on the person on whom the tenant's interest would devolve in the event of his death. (3) If the person so left in-charge is not person mentioned in sub-section (2), the tenant shall on the expiry of the period for which he could have sub let, be presumed to have abandoned his holding unless within such period he resumes cultivation thereof. (4) A tenant who ceases to cultivate and leaves the neighborhood otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of sub section (1), shall be presumed to have abandoned his holding. Sec.61 “61. Procedure before taking possession of a holding treated as abandoned - (1) Where tenant is presumed to have abandoned his holding, the Tehsildar shall, on his own motion or on the application of the landholder, as the case may be, cause a proclamation to be issued and served or published in the prescribed manner, stating that the holding of such tenant is intended to be treated as abandoned and entered upon and taken possession of accordingly unless reasonable cause to the contrary effect is shown. (2) The Tehsildar or landholder, as the case may be, may enter upon and take possession of the holding if in response to the proclamation - (i) no appearance is made or no reasonable cause to the contrary effect is shown either by the tenant who is presumed to have abandoned the holding or by any person on behalf of such tenant or on his own behalf, within a period of sixty days from the date of the service or publication of the proclamation, or (ii) an objection to such entry and possession is lodged within the period aforesaid and is rejected. (3) If any holding is entered upon and taken possession of in contravention of the provision of this section, the tenant thereof shall be deemed within the meaning of section 186 to have been ejected therefrom otherwise than by process of law or in contravention of the provisions of this Act. (4) Where any holding is entered upon and taken possession of under sub-section (2), it may, subject to the provisions of Section 62, be let to another tenant or cultivated personally by the landholder. Sec.63 63. Tenancy when extinguished – (1) The interest of tenant in his holding or a part thereof, as the case may be, shall be extinguished - (i) When he dies leaving no heir entitled to merit in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (ii) when he surrenders or abandons it in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (iii) when his land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act No.1 of 1894); (iv) when he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. (v) when he has been ejected therefrom in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (vi) when he acquires or succeeds to all the rights therein of a landholder or the landholder inherits or otherwise acquires the same. (vii) when he sells or makes a gift thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (v) when he has been ejected therefrom in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (vi) when he acquires or succeeds to all the rights therein of a landholder or the landholder inherits or otherwise acquires the same. (vii) when he sells or makes a gift thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (viii) if he migrates from India to a foreign country without obtaining a valid passport or without lawful authority; (ix) if the allotment of land is cancelled or the land is ordered to be resumed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No.15 of 1956) or rules framed thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force. Explanation – For the purpose of clause (viii), a tenant who moves or enters into a foreign country without obtaining a valid passport under the India Passport Act, 1920 (Central Act No.34 of 1920) or without a lawful authority shall be presumed to have migrated from India to a foreign country). (2) The extinction of the interest of a tenant shall operate to extinguish the interewt of any sub tenant holding under him: Provided that in every case not being a case specified in clause (iii) of sub-section (1), such sub section shall unless he himself has also been ejected or has become or is liable to ejectment under any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or unless he shall have been admitted to his holding otherwise than in accordance with law, have the right to apply for the acquisition of his right of his tenant in chief in such holding and in the improvements therein on payment of compensation determinable in accordance with Secs. 23, 24, and 25.” 15. Since finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer on Issue No.1 regarding allotment of land to Yasin Khan was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority and has not even been set aside by the Board of Revenue, therefore, allotment of 60 Bighas land in favour of Yasin Khan is not in dispute and there is finding of fact recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the petitioner is still Khatedar tenant of the land in question and the allottees' status is that of trespasser against the petitioner. In the Tenancy Act, Chapter-V deals with Surrender, Abandonment & Extinction, Surrender of tenancies and except the said Chapter-V, there is no other provision for surrender, abandonment and extinction of tenancy. A perusal of Sections 60,61 and 63 of the Tenancy Act along with the aforesaid judgments would reveal that neither the respondent State nor the JDA has followed the provision and the procedure of abandonment before possession of the holding claiming the land alleged to be abandoned by issuing proclamation and deciding the objection of any person received within sixty days. Therefore, the land cannot be said to have been abandoned and unless the land is abandoned, the tenancy right will not be presumed to be extinguished under section 63 (4) of the Tenancy Act. 16. Since on the arguments raised by the respondents in writ petition, there was no issue before the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter also, points have neither been raised before the Revenue Appellate Authority nor the Board of Revenue, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Apart from above, the Board of Revenue has also ignored the basic principle of evidence regarding burden of proving of a fact which is settled by the Supreme Court that one who claims any right has to establish his right before the court of law. Here, in the instant case, the State/JDA is claiming the land in question but the same could not have been vested in the State unless the procedure of Sec.60,61 and 63 of the Tenancy Act is followed. 18. The allottees stand in the shoe of the State and JDA, therefore, they could not claim lawful possession. Since the allottees (respondents) will suffer for no fault on their part, I invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to do justice between the parties and direct the State Government to make allotment of equivalent area of agriculture government land in nearby place to the allottees (respondents). 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed - (i) the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.1.2003 and 11.3.2003 are set aside and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 3.6.2002 is restored. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed - (i) the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 31.1.2003 and 11.3.2003 are set aside and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 3.6.2002 is restored. (ii) The State Government is directed to make allotment of equivalent area of agriculture government land in nearby place to the allottees (respondents).