JUDGMENT 1. - This batch of 32 writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, illustratively, are taken from C.W. No. 6898 of 2006, Amar Singh Jat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . 2. The petitioners, before this Court, in this batch of writ petitions, are aggrieved by the order of Board of Revenue dated 5.5.2005 passed in Reference Case No. 6/93/TA/Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Giri (deceased through LR's Dayal Giri , whereby the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue (Sh. B.L. Meena) decided the reference/revision under Sections 232 and 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955) against the judgment and decree of S.D.O. Nohar dated 26.2.1973 passed in Revenue Suit No. 22 of 1968, Krishna Giri disciple of Takhat Giri, by caste Swami, Resident of Nohar v. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Revenue, Nohar . 3. The brief facts for disposal of the present batch of writ petitions to the extent relevant are as under. 4. The disputed land in question ad-measuring 2375 bigha and 16 biswa of land situated in Nohar, District Hanumangarh, was earlier "Jagir" land, which was resumed under the provisions of Jagir Resumption Act, 1952, and in respect of that land, several litigations cropped up between various parties even up to this Court by way of writ petition being D.B.C.W.P. No. 1202 of 1982, State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Nand Giri & Ors. . The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment dated 13.11.1991, which order is quoted hereinafter in extenso by which the Division Bench of this Court while remanding the matter back to the learned Board of Revenue, on the premise that even though prior to 1981, the Board of Revenue had no power to set aside the decree" of the Revenue Court while exercising its reference jurisdiction under Section 232 of the Act of 1955, but after amendment of 1981 writ the inclusion of the word "decree" in Section 232, by way of amendment dated 5.10.1981, it has got such powers to set aside even the 'decree' of Revenue Courts also in reference jurisdiction under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. But, even prior to the amendment, the Board had the revisional powers under Section 221 of the said Act and thereby even while dealing with the reference application under Section 232 of the Act, it could exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 221 of the said Act and set aside the decree if it came to such a conclusion. The Division Bench, therefore, held that in view of facts and circumstances of the present case, it ought to have disposed of the case exercising its power under Section 221 read with Section 232 of the Act of 1955 and dealt with the case on merits of the decree impugned before it, which it had earlier refused to do so vide its impugned orders dated 28.7.1991 and 11.7.1979. 5. In pursuance of the said order of remand by the Division Bench of this Court, the Single Member of Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 and while accepting the reference application made by the Collector, and it has set aside the decree of learned S.D.O., Nohar dated 26.2.1973 and also subsequent order dated 17.9.2002 for mutation entries, and directed the revenue authorities to record the entire land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswas in the name of State Government. The said order of learned Single Member of Board of Revenue has been assailed in the present batch of writ petitions, both by the State Government (Revenue Department), Municipal Council, Nohar and the private parties, who claimed that in the original decree dated 26.2.1973, the learned S.D.O., Nohar had himself directed that 146 bighas of land in Khasra No. 793/733 out of total 2375 bighas and 16 biswas of land, was to be recorded in the name of State Government; whereas only remaining land ad-measuring 2173 bigha if land, was to be recorded in the name of decree-holder, Krishna Nand Giri, of which, necessary mutation entries were made in the revenue record on 1.8.1969. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners (private land owners), Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. C.R. Jakhar, Mr. Sudheer Sharma, Mr. Khet Singh and Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners (private land owners), Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. C.R. Jakhar, Mr. Sudheer Sharma, Mr. Khet Singh and Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, submitted that out of land so recorded in the name of State in pursuance of decree dated 26.2.1973, these private parties are the subsequent purchasers or allottees and therefore, the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 5.5.2005 directed to record the entire land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswas in the name of State again, seriously prejudiced them and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioners also brought to the notice of the court that the finding of the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue (Sh. B.L. Meena) at internal page 4 of the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 (Page 94 of the paper book) that as far as 20 bigha and 4 biswa of land was concerned, situated in Khasra Nos. 106, 107/223 and 108/224, the said Single Member had himself held that the present reference application under Section 232 of the Act was liable to be dismissed being ineffective in view of the compromise aecree aatea b.4.2UU2; ana tneretore, in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 5.5.2005, it could not have directed the entire disputed land of 2375 bighas and 16 biswas to be recorded in the name of State Government. 8. They also submitted that while disposing of a writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 2984 of 2005, Dayal Giri Chela Krishna Nand Giri R/o Nohar through Power of Attorney Holder Ami Lal S/o Uda Ram R/o Village Silwala Khurd, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. , which petition came to be decided on 29.11.2007, wherein this Court had already quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 of Board of Revenue to the extent of aforesaid 20 bigha and 4 biswas of land. Therefore, in any case, the impugned last portion of the order dated 5.5.2005 of learned Single Member of Board of Revenue directing the entire land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswa is incorrect 'and cannot be sustained. 9. Mr. D.S. Rajvi, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Nohar, drew the attention of the Court towards the facts stated by him in C.W. No. 3431 of 2005, Lekhram v. State & Ors. . 9. Mr. D.S. Rajvi, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Nohar, drew the attention of the Court towards the facts stated by him in C.W. No. 3431 of 2005, Lekhram v. State & Ors. . He also drew the attention of the Court towards the order dated 20.5.2005 (Annex.R/5/4) at Page 143 of the paper book of C.W. No. 3431/2005 passed by District Collector, Hanumangarh, whereby the Collector had allotted 5.060 hectares of Government land to the Municipal Council, Nohar, in Khasra No. 107 on payment of price of the same @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha at Z 80,000/- including therein payment of "Malgujari" of Rs. 480/- and the Municipal Council, Nohar deposited the sum of Rs. 80,480/- for said land measuring 5.060 hectares out of said 2375 bigha and 16 biswa, to be allotted to the Municipal Council, Nohar. According to learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Nohar, the Municipal Council paid the said price to the State Government vide Challan receipt produced by him at Page 154 of the paper book of writ petition on 24.5.2005. The Municipal Council, Nohar was also allotted another chunk of land measuring 3.795 hectares of Government land in the same Khasra No. 107 and price for that land of 7 2,40,360/- was also paid by the Municipal Council, Nohar vide Challan dated 24.5.2005 (Annex.R/5/8) at page 153 of the paper book in C. W. No. 3431/2005. He, therefore, submitted that the allotment of said land in favour of Municipal Council, Nohar could not be disturbed by the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue vide order dated 5.5.2005. 10. It appears from the record that several revenue suits were filed in the present case under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 for declaration of respective rights and one such decree dated 9.8.1982 is in the case of Revenue Case No. 75 of 2002, Lekhram S/o Mana Ram v. State of Rajasthan , is Annex.P-2 (at Page 43 in C.W. No. 3431/2005). 11. Mr. R.L. Jangid, AAG and Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, counsel for the State, however, supported the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 but could not contend anything against the proposed remand of the matter again to the Board of Revenue, required to be made to the Board of Revenue, in view of aforesaid situation. 12. 11. Mr. R.L. Jangid, AAG and Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, counsel for the State, however, supported the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 but could not contend anything against the proposed remand of the matter again to the Board of Revenue, required to be made to the Board of Revenue, in view of aforesaid situation. 12. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at length and perused the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 of the Single Member of Board of Revenue and record of the case, as well as the judgment/order of Division Bench of this Court dated 13.11.1991 and earlier order dated 29.11.2007 passed by this Court in C.W. No. 2984 of 2005, Dayal Giri Chela v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . 13. It is considered appropriate to first reproduce the relevant orders, referred to above. The order dated 13.11.1991 passed by the Division Bench of this Court deciding the D.B.C.W. No. 1202 of 1982, State of Rajasthan v. Krishna Nand Giri & Ors. , reads as under:- "This is a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 28.7.1981 and 11.7.1979. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 1 claims himself to be the disciple successor of Shri Takhat Giri and also claimed to be the successor of Maufidar Shri Hari Giri on the disputed land. A detailed chart of disputed land and various khasras has been submitted in the writ petition. The total land was 2375 bighas and 16 biswas. The aforesaid land was a Jagir (Maufi) land standing in the name of Hari Giri disciple of Prem Giri. Aforesaid land was resumed consequent to commencement of Rajasthan Lands Reform and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1952'. The Assistant Collector, Zamindari and Vishvedari Sriganganagar vide his order dated 15.7.1961 and 1.8.1961 ordered that the said land will be resumed and entered as Sarkari instead of ]agir because of the resumption of Jagir. The respondent Maufidar admitted that he has already taken the compensation and rehabilitation grant in resumption of Jagir and the land was mutated in the records as Govt. land. The respondent Maufidar admitted that he has already taken the compensation and rehabilitation grant in resumption of Jagir and the land was mutated in the records as Govt. land. Harigiri filed an appeal against the said order and the said appeal was decided by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 27.12.1961 observing that the rights of the parties would be decided in accordance with law in the manner prescribed after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant respondent. However, the appeal was dismissed with these observations. Thereafter, Harigiri through his power of Attorney Holder Shri Krishna Nand Girifiled an application before the Tehsildar, Nohar under Sections 10 and 18 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 for declaration of khud kasht of Harigiri in the land specified in the application. In the said application, it was prayed that all the lands which have been recorded in the settlement record as khud kasht of the petitioner, should be entered as his khatedari. The application was forwarded by the Tehsildar to the Collector. The cultivators who were actually cultivating the land contested the application praying that they are the tenants. The Collector after hearing both the parties decided the application vide his judgment dated 8.9.1967. The learned Collector divided the land into two parts. Category 'A' was the land entered as Khud Qabiz and Category 'B' was the land which was in possession of the tenants and learned Collector observed in respect of these lands that there is no entry to this effect that these lands are Khud Kasht as they have been shown as cultivated by the various cultivators. He ordered that most of the land which was Khud Qabiz of the Harigiri was Banjar land and in view of the decision given in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 52/1961 and connected writ petitions Pooran Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., ILR 16 Raj. 1105 , the entry of Khud Qabiz used in the Settlement record of the erstwhile Bikaner State cannot be treated as synonymous with Khud Kasht. The Collector came to the conclusion that Khud Qabiz land in possession of the petitioner cannot be treated as Khud Kasht and no khatedari rights can be claimed by the respondent. The Collector dismissed the application dated 6.7.1964. The Collector came to the conclusion that Khud Qabiz land in possession of the petitioner cannot be treated as Khud Kasht and no khatedari rights can be claimed by the respondent. The Collector dismissed the application dated 6.7.1964. The Maufidar did not take any further proceedings against the said order or agitate the matter before any competent Court. Thus, the said order became final and subsequently Harigiri disciple of Prem Girifiled a suit for declaration before the S.D.O., Nohar through power of attorney holder Krishna Nand Girl claiming that he was the khatedar Kashtkar of the disputed land comprising of 2375 bighas and 16 biswas of land and settlement record of Samvat year 1985 contains a wrong entry that the petitioner was Khud Qabiz and the same should be corrected as Khud Kasht. Petitioner further prayed that the mutation dated 1.8.1961 be declared null and void and he may be declared to be khatedar tenant of the aforesaid land. The petitioner State contested the suit denying the allegations of the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, Krishna Nand Giri applied for being substituted as the legal representative of deceased Harigiri and he was substituted accordingly. Against that order, State preferred a revision and the revision was allowed and the said Revision No. 204/1969 was decided on 4.8.1971 by the Board of Revenue. Learned Member of the Board of Revenue set aside the order and the' case was remanded to the trial Court with the direction that a fresh order may be passed after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made in the order. However, no order was passed substituting Krishna Nand Giri as L.R. entitling to carry on the suit in the place of the deceased Harigiri. However, the learned S.D.O. vide judgment dated 26.2.1973 decreed the suit in respect of the/agir land. The Tehsildar, Revenue, Nohar did not report the matter to the higher authorities and no appeal could be preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the S.D.O. Some of the tenants who were holding the lands in their possession applied for being impleaded as parties to the suit and their application was also dismissed. The Tehsildar, Revenue, Nohar did not report the matter to the higher authorities and no appeal could be preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the S.D.O. Some of the tenants who were holding the lands in their possession applied for being impleaded as parties to the suit and their application was also dismissed. On 9.11.197j, one Shri Pannalal Sharma, Secretary of Kashtkari Union representing the various tenants affected by the aforesaid order, applied to the Collector that Krishna Nand Giri in collusion with Tehsildar, Nohar obtained a decree regarding these lands causing loss of twenty lacs to the State Govt., hence proceedings should be taken against the aforesaid order. The Collector sentfor the record and enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the above decree has been wrongly obtained. The Collector thereafter came to the conclusion that the matter is required to be referred to the Board of Revenue but before making a reference, he issued notice to the parties. After hearing both the parties, the Collector vide its order dated 29.12.1976 made a reference to the Board of Revenue for quashing the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1973. The matter came up before the Board of Revenue and the learned Member of Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that since it was a reference and in reference, a decree passed by the subordinate Court cannot be set aside, therefore, by referring the decision in case of Karasingh, Ishwar Ram, Harji, etc. v. State Board of Revenue, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1969 decided on 2.8.1978 by this Court) declined to interfere in the reference made by the Collector. Thereafter a review application was also filed before the Board of Revenue and it was prayed that this reference may be treated as a revision and the revisional power of the Board of Revenue under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, may be exercised but that review application was rejected by the order dated 28.7.1981. State has-filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 11.7.1979 and 28.7.1981. The writ petition was admitted and notices were issued. Despite service on non-petitioner No. I Krishna Nand Giri, nobody has appeared to oppose this writ petition. We have heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and perused the record. State has-filed this writ petition challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 11.7.1979 and 28.7.1981. The writ petition was admitted and notices were issued. Despite service on non-petitioner No. I Krishna Nand Giri, nobody has appeared to oppose this writ petition. We have heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and perused the record. It is true that prior to the amendment of Section 232, the Board of Revenue could not have set aside a decree but Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has however undergone an amendment and the word 'decree' has now been inserted in Section 232 by the amendment dated 5.10.1981 but this matter is prior to 1981, therefore, the position obtaining prior to 1981 has to be examined. It is true that at that time, the decree passed by any competent Court, cannot be set aside by the Board of Revenue by exercising its reference power under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. But at that time also, the Board had a revisional jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In fact when the matter was seized by the Board of Revenue, it could not have left the matter on that ground alone that since a decree has been passed by the competent Revenue Court, therefore, in a reference, the Board cannot set aside a decree. The Board should have at least examined the matter in his revisional jurisdiction also under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In fact, a review application was filed to this effect requesting that in case, Board is not inclined to examine this decree in view of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, still the Board has jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it can be exercised but that review application was rejected being barred by limitation. In fact, a review application was filed to this effect requesting that in case, Board is not inclined to examine this decree in view of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, still the Board has jurisdiction under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it can be exercised but that review application was rejected being barred by limitation. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Board of Revenue has a revisional jurisdiction as the higher Court in the revenue side and in some what similar circumstances the matter came up before this Court in a case reported in 1981 R.R.D. page 356, wherein it was held that under Section 232, a decree cannot be set aside in reference by the Board of Revenue but notwithstanding, that, the Board of Revenue has a revisional jurisdiction and it can interfere in the matter if it finds that there is a miscarriage ofjustice. It is not the case that Board of Revenue is helpless in exercising itsjurisdiction. The Board of Revenue has ample power to examine the matter on merits and if it comes to the conclusion that the matter really warrants interference on account of the miscarriage of justice it can interfere in the given case, therefore, the view taken by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that, he has no jurisdiction to set aside the decree, cannot be countenanced as he has a power under Section 221 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act of superintendence over all the Revenue Courts below. Therefore, it would be just and proper to set aside the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 11.7.1979 and 28.7.1981 and remand the case back to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter after hearing both the parties on merits and if it considers that case warrants interference looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances so as to justice then it will be open for the Board to pass the order in accordance with law. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the case is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the matter in accordance with law.' 14. While dealing with same impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 5.5.2005 in C.W. No. 2984 of 2005, Dayal Girl Chela v. State of Rajasthan & ors. , this Court on 29.11.2007 held as under: "8. While dealing with same impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 5.5.2005 in C.W. No. 2984 of 2005, Dayal Girl Chela v. State of Rajasthan & ors. , this Court on 29.11.2007 held as under: "8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions of the counsel made at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has clearly fallen in error in passing the impugned order dated 5.5.2005. Once the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Board of Revenue though an interim order dated 17.9.2002 had acquired finality having been challenged by the State before this Court up to the Division Bench of this Court, one fails to understand how any Single Member of the Board of Revenue could pass a contrary order without making any reference to the orders passed by this Court at least to the order of learned Single judge dated 28.4.2003 which was passed at least two years prior to the passing of the order on 5.5.2005. As far as the dispute relating 20.04 bighas of land was concerned, that becamefinal qua the petitioner and the reference with respect to that land was already rejected by the earlier Member of the Board of Revenue as having become infructuous and despite noticing this fact in the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 the learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue chose to allow the entire reference and set aside the earlier order dated 17.9.2002, ignoring this Court's order. 9. This Court is of the opinion therefore, that impugned order (Annexure 4) dated 5.5.2005 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure 4) dated 5.5.2005 and consequential Mutation Entries vide (Annexure 12) dated 11.5.2005 made by the Tehsildar, Nohar are quashed and set aside to the extent of 20 bighas 4 biswa as aforesaid. The respondent Tehsildar, Nohar shall affect the necessary mutation entries in favour of the petitioner in terms of the previous order dated 17.9.2002 for said 20 bighas 4 biswa land within a period of two months from today. No orders as to costs." 15. The respondent Tehsildar, Nohar shall affect the necessary mutation entries in favour of the petitioner in terms of the previous order dated 17.9.2002 for said 20 bighas 4 biswa land within a period of two months from today. No orders as to costs." 15. The operative portion of the impugned decree dated 26.2.1973 in Revenue Suit No. 29 of 1968, Krishna Nand Giri v. State of Rajasthan , is also reproduced for ready reference: " okn oknh fMxzh fd;k tkdj fuEu izdkj ls vkns'k fn;s tkrs gS fd% 1- oknh Jh d`".kkuUn fxjh fooknxzLr Hkwfe 2375 AAA@1 esa ls [k0ua0 793@733 dh 146 AA 1 ch?kk [kke rFkk [k0ua0 11 feu dqy 571 dqy 203 AAA 1 ch?kk [kke dks NksM+dj 2172 ch0 [kke dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj gS ( Hkwfe dk fooj.k ifjf'k"B esa vafdr gS ) D;ksafd ;g Hkwfe gfjfxjh ds xq:tu dh [kkrsnkjh Fkh vkSj xqeV jrufxjh th ds ihNs ekQh dh FkhA 2- bUrdky fnukad 1-8-1961 cuke izfroknh tks vafdr gqvk gS og fu;e fo:) gksus ds dkj.k izHkkoghu gS rFkk mls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- [k0ua0 11 fey tks tksgM+h rFkk ik;ru gS og oknh ds futh mi;ksx dh gksus ds ifj.kke Lo:i oknh mldk iz;ksx ;Fkkor~ djrk jgsxkA 4- [k0ua0 793@733 dh 146 AA 1 udy tekcUnh la0 2009&12 esa ^[kqn dkfct* vafdr gksus ds dkj.k vkjkth jkt ?kksf"kr dh tkrh gSA 5- O;; okn mHk; i{k viuk&viuk ogu djsaA ipkZ fMxzh yxk;k tkosaA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 26-2-1973 dks fy[kok;k tkdj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA " 16. The learned Single Member of Board of Revenue in the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 has held as under : " ;g jsQjsal varxZr /kkjk 232 o 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 fo:) fu.kZ; mi[kaM vf/kdkjh uksgj fnukad 26-2-1973 izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe 2375 ch?kk 16 fcLok tkxhj Hkwfe FkhA tkxhjnkjh fcLosnkjh mUewyu vf/kfu;e ds rgr fookfnr Hkwfe dks lgk;d ftyk/kh'k }kjk fnukad 15-7-1961 dks ljdkjh Hkwfe ?kksf"kr dh xbZA vizkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; jktLo eaMy esa vihy djus ij fu.kZ; fnukad 27-12-1962 }kjk nqckjk lquokbZ ds fy;s izdj.k fjek.M fd;k x;kA ftyk/kh'k xaxkuxj }kjk tehankjh fcLosnkjh mUewyu vf/kxzg.k ds rgr nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn fnukad 8-9-1967 dks d`".kkuUn fxjh ds iwoZt dks [kqndk'r ugha ekurs gq;s [kkrsnkjh gdwd ?kksf"kr ugha fd;s rFkk ftyk/kh'k xaxkuxj dks vkns'k vafre gks x;kA bl vkns'k ds fo:) dksbZ vihy ;k fjohtu ugha dh xbZA vizkFkhZ d`".kkuUn fxjh dh vksj ls mi[kaM vf/kdkjh uksgj ds ;gka jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr nkok izLrqr dj fnukad 26-2-1973 dks fookfnr vkjkth 2375 ch?kk 16 fcLok Hkwfe dh [kkrsnkjh ?kksf"kr djok yhA mi[kaM vf/kdkjh uksgj }kjk ftyk/kh'k xaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 8-9-1967 dh tkudkjh gksrs gq;s Hkh fookfnr vkjkth dk vizkFkhZ dks xSj dkuwuh [kkrsnkjh iznku djus ls O;fFkr gksdj jsQjsal jktLo eaMy esa is'k fd;k x;kA ftls fu.kZ; fnukad 11-7-1979 }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k rFkk bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) utjlkuh Hkh fnukad 28-7-1981 dks [kkjht dj nh xbZA ljdkj }kjk mDr nksuksa fu.kZ;ksa ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV djus ij nksuksa fu.kZ;k fujLr dj jsQjsal dh iqu% lquokbZ gsrq jktLo e.My dks fnukad 13-11-1991 dks fjek.M dj fn;kA jsQjsal rF;ksa dks ngjkrs gq, fo}ku jktdh; odhy us cgl esa dgk fd vkjkth eqruktk jdck 2375 ch?kk 16 fcLok gfjfxjh vkjkth eqruktk dk tkxhnkj gksuk crk;k x;k gSA foi{kh dk izFkZuk i= ckc~r fuft lEifRr e; [kqndk'r vkjkft;kr lacaf/kr ftyk dysDVj ds ;gka /kkjk 10 tkxhj fjte'ku vf/kfu;e ds rgr [kkfjt gqvkA bl dze esa vizkFkhZ us vkxs dksbZ pkjktksgh fu;ekuqlkj ugha dhA ftlls lanfHkZr vkns'k vafre vkns'k gks x;kA lanfHkZr ewy jsQjsal jktLo eaMy }kjk bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk fd U;k;ky; fMdzh izdj.kksa esa lu~ 1981 ds la'kks/ku ds iwoZ jsQjsal fd;k gh ugha vkt ldrk FkkA blh dze esa utjlkuh izkFkZuk i= fe;kn ds fcUnq ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk fd U;k;ky; fMdzh izdj.kksa esa lu~ 1981 ds la'kks/ku ds iwoZ jsQjsal fd;k gh ugha tk ldrk FkkA blh dze esa utjlkuh izkFkZuk i= fe;kn ds fcUnq ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkS bl ij foi{kh }kjk [kkrsnkjh dk nkok dj vkjkth eqruktk dh [kkrsnkjh fMdzh fnukad 26-2-1973 fgfly dh xbZA ;g fMdzh ,cbfufl;ksa oksbZM o ckMZ ck; ykW gSA tkfxj fjte'ku ,DV] 1952 ds rgr lu~ 1954 esa cM+h&cM+h tkxhjksa ds fjte'ku dh dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ xbZ FkhA blh dze esa 'ks"k izdj.kksa esa lu~ 1958 esa vkSj ekQhnkj izdj.kksa esa 1963 esa dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ xbZ FkhA lanfHkZr U;k;ky; fMdzh esa tkfxj fjtfe'ku ,DV /kkjk 10 o /kkjk 13 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dks ,d leku dgk x;k gSA tcfd okLrfodrk ;g gS fd /kkjk 13 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dks ,d leku dgk x;k gSA tcfd okLrfodrk ;g gS fd /kkjk 13 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dks ,d leku dgk x;k gSA tcfd okLrfodrk ;g gS fd /kkjk 13 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e esa bl rjg ds izdj.k tks fd tkfxj ls lacaf/kr gS] fuf.kZr gh ugha fd;s tk ldrs gSA tkxhj Hkwfe ij xSj tkxhjnkj dk'rdkj ds dCts dk'r] fVusalh ds dze esa gh /kkjk 13 o 15 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ykxw gksrk gSA bl ij Hkh fo'ks"k vf/kfu;e tkfxj fjte'ku ,DV esa dk;Zokgh vkns'k ds i'pkr~ /kkjk 13 o 15 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr dksbZ vkns'k fd;s gh ugha tk ldrs gSA lu~ 1961 esa jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa ukekUrjdj.k rLnhd gks pqdk gSA bl ij Hkh /kkjk 46 tkfxj fjte'ku ,DV jktLo o flfoy U;k;ky; {ks=kf/kdkjh dk u gksuk Li"V djrk gSA bl ij Hkh vnkyr gktk dks /kkjk 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ekrgo vnkyr dh xyr dk;Zokgh vkns'kksa ds dze esa fo'ks"kkf/kdkj gSA gfjfxjh ekQhnkj ds okfjl d`".kkuan dks fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa us xyr :i ls okfjl ekuk gSA lacaf/kr mi[kaM vf/kdkjh us iwoZ esa jktLo eaMy ds bl izdj.k dks fjek.M dh visf{kr tkap ugh dh Fkh vkSj xSj dkuwuh nkok fMdzh fd;k FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj izdj.k esa /kkjk 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds varxZr lquokbZ dj iwokZuqlkj fu.kZ; ds funsZ'k fn;s gSA mi[kaM vf/kdkjh us xSj dkuwuh :i ls fujk/kkj fMdzh ikfjr dh gSA U;k;ky; ds fo'ys"k.k dh Lora=rk vo'; gSA ijUrq fo'ys"k.k xSj dkuwuh] rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr u gksdj nLrkosth o vU; 'kgknr ds vk/kkj ij u gksuk xyr fo'ys"k.k dgk tk;sxk] tks izkjfEHkd :i ls gh izHkko 'kwU; o ckMZ ck; ykW gSA U;k;ky; gktk vkns'k fnukad 17-9-2002 ds dze esa crk;k x;k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh ds yfEcr jgrs /kkjk 52 dectrine of lis pendence MkWDVjh vkWQ fMLisaljh o le>kSrk fu.kZ; bl jsQjsal ds vafre fu.kZ;k/khu gSA bl ij Hkh fdlh Hkh le>kSrk lfefr vFkok vkaf'kd :i ls gh lgh U;k;ky; gktk dks Hkh izdj.k dks VqdM+ks esa fuLrkj.k djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA le>kSrk lfefr esa lacaf/kr ftyk dysDVj@jktLo eaMy i{kdkj u FkkA izdj.k esa ihd ,.M P;wt O;oLFkk viukuk fu;e U;k;fgr esa ugha gSA jsQjsal vkjkth [kqndk'r dh u ekurs gq;s jdck 2375-16 ch?kk dk fd;k x;k FkkA bl rjg ;g jsQjsal Lohdkj fd;k tkosA izfrmRrj cgl esa fo}ku odhy vizkFkhZ i{k us dgk lanfHkZr U;k;ky; fMdzh jkT; ljdkj dks lquus ds i'pkr~ ikfjr dh xbZ FkhA mlesa jn~nkscny ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ( 1994 vkj0vkj0Mh0 ist 523 ) U;k;ky; fMdzh ls lacaf/kr izdj.kksa esa 5-10-1981 ds ckn ds izdj.kksa esa gh jsQjsal }kjk n[ky laHko gSA ;g lgh gS fd jktLo eaMy lkekU;r% o ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj /kkjk 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds varxZr gky izdj.k esa fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dj ldrk gSA bl ij Hkh yEcs vjls ckn vc vkjkth eqruktk esa vizkFkhZ ds cgqewY; vf/kdkj iSnk gks pqds gSA tehu dks d`f"k ;ksX; cuk;k x;k gSA lq/kkj fd;k x;k gSA jktLo eaMy us igys vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA ftu izdj.kksa esa fe;kn fu;e ugha gS] mueasa ,d ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k esa gh fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh vkns'k fd;s tk ldrs gS] u fd dkQh vjls cknA bl rjg ls rF; ;g n'kkZrs gS fd ;g jsQjsal vLohdkj fd;k tkosA le>kSrk lfefr fu.kZ; vuqlkj vnkyr gktk us fnukad 17-9-2002 vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA fjtksbaMj esa crk;k x;k fd lanfHkZr U;k;ky; fMdzh 1973 dh gSA tkudkjh esa vkus ij 1977 esa jsQjsal dk;Zokgh dh xbZ FkhA ftyk dysDVj us vius vkns'k fnukad 8-9-1967 dks vkjkth eqruktk dks ekQhnkj dh [kqndk'r tehu ugha ekuk gSA tkxhj ,DV dh /kkjk 2 ( 1 ) esa [kqndk'r vkSj [kqndkfct dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA lanfHkZr U;k;ky; fMdzh xSj dkuwuh gSA tkxhj ,DV /kkjk 22 ds vuqlkj vkjkth eqruktk tkxhjnkj dh [kqndk'r u gksus ds dkj.k jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr gks dCtsjkt yh xbZA tkxhj ,DV ds eqdkcys jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e@jktLFkku Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e lkekU; vf/kfu;e gS] tks tkxhj ,DV ij ck/;dkjh ugha gSA tkxhj ,DV ds rgr okafNr xyr vkns'k u feyus dh fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ }kjk jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr xyr fZMdzh gkfly dh xbZ gSA tkxhjnkj dh futh laifRr vkSj [kqndk'r d`f"k Hkwfe tkxhj ,DV ds rgr ?kksf"kr ugha dh xbZ] bl fLFkfr esa jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e /kkjk 13 dh xyr fo'ys"k.k fd;k x;k vkSj xyr fMdzh ikfjr dh xbZ@djokbZ xbZA xyr fMdzh izHkko 'kwU; gSA ( 1980 vkj0vkj0Mh0 ist 801 ) vr% ;g fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkosA izdj.k esa voekuuk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 2-5-2002 li'kiFk is'k fd;k FkkA ;g voekuuk izk0iz- odhy Jh nwuhpan us vius 'kiFk i= ds lkFk is'k fd;k FkkA bl izk0iz0 esa U;k;kf/kifr Jh bljkuh lfgr vU; vf/kdkfj;ku vkfn tks fd le>kSrk lfefr esa lnL; Fks] vkfn ds f[kykQ is'k dh gSA ;g U;k;ky; ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh bljkuh o vU; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh vey esa ykus esa l{ke ugha gS] os ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds izdj.k fjek.M dh fLFkfr esa vc egRoghu gks tkrs gSA izdj.k 1973 U;k;ky; fMdzh ij vk/kkfjr gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;k;y ds lu~ 1991 esa fjek.M ds ckotwn Hkh dkQh foyEc gks pqdk gSA vr% voekuuk izk0i0 ij dk;Zokgh djuk mfpr ugha gSA geus cgl lekIr dh ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 13-11-1991 dks vkns'k fn;k gS fd jktLo eaMy /kkjk 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr izdj.k esa lqudj fu;ekuqlkj fu.kZ; ikfjr djsA blh nkSjku jktLFkku jkT; le>kSrk lfefr t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj&9@jk0jk0lk0l0@02@3&9 fnukad 9-4-2002 izdj.k la0 vihy@2 n;kyfxjh f'ko d`".kuu fxjh cuke~ {ks=kf/kdkjh uxjikfydk uksgj ftyk guqekux<+] fu.kZ; fnukad 8-4-2002 vuqlkj i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkost lk{;] fofHkUu U;k;y; }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk v/;;u fd;kA izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fuEu U;k;ky; esa fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;s gS% dz0l0 U;k;ky; dk uke okn la0 fu.kZ; fnukad 1 ,l0Mh0,e0 uksgj 22@1968 26-2-1973 2 jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] chdkusj 110@1994 13-5-1997 3 jktLo eaMy jktLFkku] vtesj 77@1997 5-8-1999 4 ftyk dysDVj] guqekux<+ 18@1999 28-10-1999 5 jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh] xaxkuxj 55@1999 24-3-2000 ge lg loZFkk U;k;ksfpr le>rs gS fd pwafd fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa us uksgj ds [k0ua0 106 jdck 8 ch?kk 7 fcLok o [k0ua0 107@223 ds 5 ch?kk 17 fcLok o [k0ua0 108@224 ds 6 ch?kk dqy 20 ch?kk 4 fcLok Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkjh gd gh LokfeRo izkFkhZ dks ?kksf"kr dj fn;k gS rks uxj ikfydk uksgj dk ;g dFku fd mls mDr Hkwfe ftyk dysDVj ds vkns'k fnukad 14-9-1983 ls feyh gS] i;kZIr o rkfdZd ugha gS----- uxj ikfydk uksgj dh iz'uxr Hkwfe ckcr~ Dyse pyus ;ksX; ugha gksdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ---,l0Mh0ds0,y0 eh.kk lnL;] jkT; le>kSrk lfefr] uxjh; fodkl ,oa vkoklu foHkkx] 'kklu lfopky;] t;iqj] ,l0Mh0 eks0 jQhd] vfr- egkvf/koDrk] lnL; th0ds0 frokjh funs'kd] LFkkuh; fudk; foHkkx] lnL; ,l0Mh0 U;k;ewfrZ vkbZ0,0 bljkuh] v/;{k jktLFkku l- l- lfefr t;iqj ,l0Mh0A vnkyr gktk vkns'k fnukad 17-9-2002 ,dy ihB Jh ch-ch- egkafr ekuuh; lnL; vuqlkj vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ( ist rhu iSjk 2 ) izk-iz- fnukad 16-4-2002 Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% izk-i- Lohdkj djrs gq;s le>kSrk lfefr vkns'k fnukad 8-4-2002 ds varxZr fookfnr Hkwfe [k-ua- 106] 107@223 o 108@224 jdck 20-4 ch?kk ds laca/k esa orZeku jsQjsal dks fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA U;k;ky; jktLo eaMy vtesj vihy@16@xaxkuxj 61 Jh gfjfxjh cuke~ lgk;d ftyk/kh'k tehankjh fcLcsnkjh jktLFkku o vU; fu.kZ; fnukad 27-12-1961 vuqlkj tkxhj o eqvkotk ysuk Lohdkj fd;kA bl ij Hkh jktLo banzkt ds dze esa foLr`r tkWap vkfn rF;ksa dks ;g ekuk x;k fd vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA mijksDr lquokbZ Mh0ch0 }kjk dh tkdj vihy [kkfjt dh xbZ FkhA nLrkost ds voyksdu ls ;g tkudkjh esa vk;k gS fd vkjkth eqruktk ij laor~ 2012 esa vU; dk'rdkjksa ds uke dk'r ntZ gSA bu dk'rdkjksa dks fofHkUu vnkyrh dk;Zokfg;ksa esa i{kdkj Hkh cuk;k x;k gSA laor~ 2012 ( 15-10-1955 ) dks vkjkth eqruktk dh fVusalh o dCtk dk'r vizkFkhZ ds i{k esa lkfcr ugha gSA ckn ds o"kksZa esa Hkh dCtkdk'r o yxku ds lcwr is'k ugha fd;s x;s gS] rks lgou lu~ 1961 rd jgs jktLo banzktkr ds vk/kkj ij fdl rjg [kkrsnkjh izkIr dj ldrs gS] Li"V ugha gSA jktLFkku tkxhj fjte'ku ,DV fo'ks"k vf/kfu;e ds rgr dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr~ lkekU; jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 ds rgr dk;Zokgh vkns'k laHko gh ugha gSA vizkFkhZ i{k us mn~?kks"k.kk nkos esa tkxhj fjte'ku ds rgr dk;Zokgh vkns'kksa dks U;k;ky;ksa dh tkudkjh esa ugha yk;k x;k gSA bl ij Hkh mi[kaM vf/kdkjh uksgj dh xSj dkuwuh :i ls fVusalh o dCtkdk'r lkfcr u gksrs gq;s Hkh tkxhj fjte'ku izdj.k esa [kkrsnkjh nsuk U;kf;d izfdz;k dk euekuk mi;ksx gSA ftls dkuwuh ekU;rk ugha nh tk ldrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd jktLo nkoksa o fMdzh dh lwjr esa fu;eksa esa vihy dk izko/kku gSA ijarq tks dk;Zokgh vkns'k ,cbfufl;ksa okbZM o ckWMZ ckW; ykW gS] muesa vnkyr gktk /kkjk 221 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrh gSA vkjkth eqruktk ckcr~ l{ke vkWFkfjVh tkxhj fjte'ku ,DV ds dze es ftyk dysDVj xaxkuxj dk vkns'k vkt Hkh izHkkoh gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkjkth eqruktk ds ckcr~ fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa vkfn tgka rd fd vnkyr gktk }kjk Hkh fnukad 17-9-2002 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA bl ij Hkh ikfjr izdj.kksa ds rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s o fofHkUu fojks/kkHkklh fu.kZ;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs mijksDr foospu ds dze esa ;g ;g jsQjsal Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA fu;e U;k;fgr esa ;g mfpr Hkh jktdh; vfHkHkk"kd Jh ts0ih0 ekFkqj us crk;k fd vnkyr gkrk dk vkns'k fnukad 17-9-2002 ds dze esa ftyk dysDVj guqekux<+ dks fy[kk x;k FkkA bl dze esa D;k dk;Zokgh djkbZ xbZ] vkt dh oLrqfLFkfr D;k gS] ckcr~ tkudkjh dh tk jgh gSA bl ij odhy vizkFkhZ us crk;k fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl dze esa fjV dh xbZ Fkh] tks [kkfjt gks pqdh gSA ijarq bl dze esa dksbZ fo'oluh; vf/kd`r nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr vuqlj.k esa ;g jsQjsal Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS o U;k;ky; mi[kaM vf/kdkjh uksgj fu.kZ; fnukad 26-2-1973 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vnkyr gktk vns'k fnukad 17-9-2002 Hkh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vkjkth eqruktk iwokZuqlkj jktdh; Hkwfe ntZ dh tkosA oknxzLr vkjkth 2375 ch?kk 16 fcLok jdck jkt ntZ fd;k tkos o vkns'k fnukad 1-8-1961 cgd jkT; ljdkj ;Fkkor izHkkoh gSA [k0ua0 11 feu tksgM ik;ru gS] dk iz;ksx Hkh vizkFkhZ ugha djsxkA ipkZ fMdzh tkjh gksA fjdkMZ vnkyr ekrgr ykSVk;k tkosA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA Sd/- ( ch0,y0eh.kk ) lnL; " 17. From the aforesaid, it appears that since the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue failed to take a comprehensive view of the entire disputed land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswa and passed self-contradictory orders in the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 itself as narrated above for 20 bigha and 4 biswa of land, dealt with in this Court in C.W. No. 2984 of 2005, Dayal Giri Chela v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 29.11.2007 and Board, has also to the extent of 146 bigha and 2 biswa of land decreed in favour of State vide decree dated 26.2.1973 itself, quoted above; and for which there was no occasion of reference to the Board under Section 232 arising out of the impugned decree dated 26.2.1973, but still the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue in the operative portion of the order dated 5.5.2005 has directed that the entire land 2375 bigha and 16 biswa be recorded in the name of State Government giving rise to obvious incongruities in the order dated 5.5.2005, the part of which has already been quashed by this Court qua the petitioner, Dayal Giri in C.W. No. 2984/2005, decided on 29.11.2007. Since the genesis of the present batch of writ petitions, 32 in number, as per Schedule appended with this judgment is the impugned order of Board dated 5.5.2005, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 5.5.2005 in its entirety cannot be sustained and it is required to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside and the entire case again deserves to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue. 18. Obviously, the rival claims of private parties, Municipal Council, Nohar and the State have arisen in this litigation with respect to the said total land measuring 2375 bigha 16 biswas situated in Nohar, District Hanumangarh. Unless the complete and comprehensive view with respect to said entire land of 2375 bigha 16 biswas is taken by the final fact finding body i.e. the Board of Revenue, the various disputes, which have so far arisen on account of such different orders passed at different levels, cannot be put to an end. Therefore, there is a need for the Board of Revenue to deal with the matter again in total and I\Ki1 A n.. Therefore, there is a need for the Board of Revenue to deal with the matter again in total and I\Ki1 A n.. nnn A o comprehensive view of the entire matter in respect of the entire land in question measuring 2375 bigha 16 biswas, situated at Nohar, District Hanumangarh. 19. Accordingly, while remanding the matter back to the learned Board of Revenue, this Court is of the further opinion that the Bench of at least three members of Board of Revenue, headed by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue himself, should re-decide this reference/revision while exercising its powers under Sections 232 and 221 of the Act of 1955 read together, instead of a Single Member and such larger Bench should consider all the previous orders, decrees and the judgments rendered by this Court with respect to said land in question. They should not only fully quote all these orders with a list of dates in sequence of these orders and other relevant events, while re-deciding this matter again, but also indicate their findings and reasons and impact of these orders and decisions on the various parts and portion of the said entire land of 2375 bigha and 16 biswas. The previous orders passed by the Board of Revenue and its lower Revenue Courts or Appellate Authority will not stand in the way of the said larger Bench of Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue is expected, and is therefore, directed to rehear the entire matter after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, namely, State through the Revenue Department, Municipal Council, Nohar and the private parties, who are involved in the present litigation in the present set of writ petitions before this Court. The larger Bench of Board of Revenue of three members, headed by the Chairman, is expected to give their own reasons, findings after considering the entire material on record, original revenue record, various decrees and orders and judgments of this Court and thereafter decide the respective rights of the parties. While deciding the matter afresh, the Board of Revenue shall make the map of the entire land in question (measuring 2375 bigha 16 biswa), which will form the part of their judgment, showing their respective findings and allocation of the land in question with respective rights of the parties determined by them. 20. While deciding the matter afresh, the Board of Revenue shall make the map of the entire land in question (measuring 2375 bigha 16 biswa), which will form the part of their judgment, showing their respective findings and allocation of the land in question with respective rights of the parties determined by them. 20. In some of the cases, pending before this Court, interim relief had been granted to the parties in the form of status quo orders, therefore, it is directed that till the Board of Revenue so re-decides the aforesaid matter, which it is expected to decide within one year from today, the status quo of he entire land 2375 bigha and 16 biswas in question, shall be maintained by all the concerned parties. No further alienation of the land in question falling within the said area of 2375 bigha and 16 biswas of the land shall be made by any party. 21. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of. The order impugned dated 5.5.2005 passed by learned Single Member of Board of Revenue is set aside. All the parties either in person or through their respective counsels, in the first instance may appear before the Chairman of Board of Revenue/Bench headed by him on 1.3.2013 and thereafter the learned Chairman of Board of Revenue may constitute the three members bench to expeditiously hear the aforesaid matter as indicated above and decide the same within one year from today. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, forthwith for information and necessary action. Schedule 'A' 1. S.B. C.W.P. No. 7532 of 2006, Hanuman & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. . 2. S.B. C.W.P. No. 591 of 1998, State of Raj. v. Lekh Ram 3. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3300 of 2005, Bhoora Mal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 4. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3431 of 2005, Lekh Ram v. State of Raj. & Ors. . 5. S.B. C.W.P. No. 1358 of 2006, Phoosa Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 6. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3313 of 2006, Pushpa Devi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 7. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3781 of 2006, LR's of Khayali Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 8. & Ors. . 5. S.B. C.W.P. No. 1358 of 2006, Phoosa Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 6. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3313 of 2006, Pushpa Devi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 7. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3781 of 2006, LR's of Khayali Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 8. S.B. C.W.P. No. 5076 of 2006, Durga Dutt v. State of Raj. & Ors. 9. S.B. C.W.P. No. 898 of 2007, Naresh & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 10. S.B. C.W.P. No. 1840 of 2007, Tara Chand & Ors., v. State of Raj. & Ors. 11. S.B. C.W.P. No. 2052 of 2007, Rajeev Kumar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 12. S.B. C.W.P. No. 2057 of 2007, Smt. Pema v. State of Raj. & Ors. 13. S.B. C.W.P. No. 2072 of 2007, Dushyant & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 14. S.B. C.W.P. No. 2347 of 2007, Raja Ram & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 15. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6317 of 2007, Chanan Ram & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 16. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6318 of 2007, Hans Raj & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 17. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6319 of 2007, Ninjan & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 18. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6320 of 2007, Santosh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 19. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6321 of 2007, Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 20. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6322 of 2007, Smt. Geeta & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 21. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6323 of 2007, Krishna Kumar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 22. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6328 of 2007, Balveer Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 23. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6423 of 2007, Sohan Lal & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 24. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6579 of 2007, Daya Ram & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 25. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6611 of 2007, Daya Shankar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 26. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3577 of 2008, Krishan Lal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 27. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3578 of 2008, Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 28. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 25. S.B. C.W.P. No. 6611 of 2007, Daya Shankar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 26. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3577 of 2008, Krishan Lal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 27. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3578 of 2008, Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 28. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3579 of 2008, Smt. Chandra Prabha & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 29. S.B. C.W.P. No. 3570 of 2011, Chhindra Devi & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 30. S.B. C.W.P. No. 5622 of 2005, Arjun Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. 31. S.B. C.W.P. No. 7533 of 2006, Yashveer Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors. Petitions disposed of. *******