JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 2.11.2012 (Annex. 12) passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and order dated 27.1.1998 (Annex. 10) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ajmer (Head Quarters Jaipur). 2. As per contention of the petitioners land situated in Khasra No. 187 was wrongly recorded 'as 'charagah' (pasture) although the ancestors of petitioners No. 1 to 3 were cultivating the same. Therefore, upon application filed by the ancestor of the petitioners No. 1 to 3 an order was passed on 30.1.1956 whereby it was ordered that the land of Khasra No. 187 may be recorded in the name of Bijiya, ancestor of petitioners No. 1 to 3. it was further ordered that land measuring 55.5 bigha of Khasra No. 185 may be recorded as pasture land and on that basis, necessary corrections were made in the revenue record. The petitioners' contention is that till date the said land is recorded as pasture (charagah) land in village Baghakawas Tehsil Chomu (District Jaipur). 3. As per the petitioners, maliciously by fabrication the entries of Khasra 187 rakaba 73.10 bigha were erased in the revenue record in the jamabandi of samvat 2025-2028 and vide mutation No. 60 dated 23.9.1963 above portion of land was recorded in the name of Bijiya. As per the petitioners, on 27.1.1998 about 22 years after, an appeal was preferred under the nomenclature of "Aam Janata" by respondents No. 4(i) to 4(v) against the mutation made on 23.9.1963. Respondent No. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Amer (District Jaipur) allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.1.1998, against which two appeals were preferred by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur allowed both the appeals vide judgment dated 5.11.1999. Against the judgment slated 5.11.1999 two revision petitions were filed by respondents and learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowed both the revision petitions and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur vide judgment dated 2.11.2012 whereby the matter was remanded to Sub Divisional Officer, Amer to decide the same on merit afresh. 4. Against the judgment slated 5.11.1999 two revision petitions were filed by respondents and learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowed both the revision petitions and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur vide judgment dated 2.11.2012 whereby the matter was remanded to Sub Divisional Officer, Amer to decide the same on merit afresh. 4. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur was in consonance with law because he remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer while quashing his order dated 27.1.1998 but the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, although knowing it well that appeal was filed 22 years after, set aside the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner and restored the judgment dated 27.1.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer which is totally illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 2.11.2012 passed in the revision petitions filed under Section 84, read with Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the order of the Division Commissioner, Jaipur is not in consonance with law because necessary corrections were made in the year 1963 and mutation was in the name of ancestor of the petitioners on the basis of revenue record, therefore, the reference was totally unwarranted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur has completely failed to consider the important aspect of the matter that the land in question was entered as charagah land, therefore, the Board of Revenue rightly upheld the order of the S.D.O., in which there is no illegality. 7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 8. Admittedly, the revision filed against the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioners dated 5.11.1999 was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the ground of limitation, inspite of that, after remand of the matter by this Court, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer upheld the order passed by the S.D.O., Amer whereby the appeals filed by the respondents were allowed. 9. 9. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no error was committed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in remitting the matter to the S.D.O. again for decision afresh but the Board of Revenue exercised its power without considering that the respondents preferred appeals after 22 years and set aside the mutation made in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. 10. In view of the above, the judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Revision LR Act No. 5682/1999 and Revision LR Act No. 5683/1999 is not sustainable in law. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Aforesaid order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is hereby quashed and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 5.11.1999 is hereby restored with further direction to the S.D.O., Amer to comply the directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur vide judgment dated 5.11.1999.Writ Petition Allowed. *******