JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned order dated 20.06.1995 (Annex.4) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer (the Board or the Board of Revenue hereinafter) in Reference Case No. T.A./42/95/Bikaner cannot be sustained for the fundamental reason that the same had been passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice is to point that a revenue suit bearing No. 195/1988 seeking entries in revenue records as filed by the petitioner came to be decreed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Kolayat on 14.12.1988 directing correction of the entries so as to record the petitioner as gair-khatedar in relation to the land in question. 3. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation), Bikaner after examining the record of the said revenue suit served a notice upon the petitioner for the purpose of making a reference to the Board of Revenue in response whereto the petitioner did file a reply but thereafter nobody appeared on her behalf; and said Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation), after noticing the absence of the petitioner, proceeded to draw an order dated 13.03.1995 making reference to the Board of Revenue against the impugned decree and directed that the non-applicant (the present petitioner) be informed by registered post notice to remain present before the Board on 20.06.1995. 4. The Board of Revenue proceeded to decide the said reference on the very first date of appearance as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation), i.e., 20.06.1995 with the observation that the non-applicant (the present petitioner) was not present despite notice and further with the observation that the suit was decreed only on the basis of oral evidence granting the rights to the petitioner in 21 bighas of Johad Paitan land. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she was never served with any notice for appearance before the Board of Revenue. 5. It is apparent on the face of the record that the order dated 13.03.1995 was drawn in the absence of the petitioner; and rather, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) directed that the petitioner be informed by registered-post notice to remain present before the Board on 20.06.1995. 5. It is apparent on the face of the record that the order dated 13.03.1995 was drawn in the absence of the petitioner; and rather, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Colonisation) directed that the petitioner be informed by registered-post notice to remain present before the Board on 20.06.1995. The Board of Revenue proceeded to finally decide the reference on 20.06.1995 itself and while accepting the reference, set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1988. It has not been shown if the petitioner ever received the information about the date of appearance fixed before the Board. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner has been denied adequate opportunity of hearing before the Board of Revenue and on this count alone, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 20.06.1995 (Annex.4) deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for reconsideration of the Board in accordance with law after extending opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned order dated 20.06.1995 is set aside. Reference Case No. T.A./42/95/ Bikaner shall stand restored to the file of Board of Revenue to be considered and decided in accordance with law after extending adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. 8. The parties through their counsel appearing before this Court now shall stand at notice to appear before the Board of Revenue on 27.04.2009. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition.Petition Allowed. *******