JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions are founded on identical facts and the question of law involved therein is also common, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For adjudication of the lis involved in all these petitions, pleadings of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6773 of 2010 are narrated hereinafter in brevity. 3. In the erstwhile princely State of Jodhpur, there existed a convention of issuing Bahi Patta and in respect of land measuring 20 bighas at Tanawara road, Tehsil & District Jodhpur, Bahi Patta was issued in the name of Shri Rimju s/o Jamal Musalman in Samvat 1909 (corresponding to year 1852). After death of Shri Rimju, the aforesaid land vested in his sole legal heir Illahiji and eventually on his death the land devolved and vested in his sole legal heir Shri Noor Mohammed. Being owner of the entire land, Noor Mohammed gifted the same to his five sons namely Mohammed Sadiq, Mohammed Umar, Lal Mohammed, Mohammed Rafiq and Roshan Mohammed by a registered deed dated 17th of June 1964. Although Noor Mohammed had a perfect title over the land and consequently there was no flaw/infirmity in transferring the land to his sons by way of gift deed, but the Enforcement Officer of the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for short, 'Trust') submitted a report dated 11th of April 1965 before the Estate Officer alleging therein that title of Shri Noon Mohammed on land in question is under cloud as the said land is Nazul land located near Railway Station, Bhagat-ki-kothi, Jodhpur. Taking cognisance of the report of Enforcement Inspector, proceedings were initiated against Shri Noor Mohammed under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1964 (for short, 'Act of 1964'). These proceedings finally culminated into eviction of Noor Mohammed from the land in question vide order dated 31st of March 1970. Being aggrieved from the verdict of the Estate Officer, Noor Mohammed laid an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur and the learned District Judge, Jodhpur vide its order dated 26th of May 1971 set aside the order passed by Estate Officer and remanded the matter back for holding enquiry afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1964 in the light of observations made in the order. On remand of the matter, fresh case was registered bearing No.9/75 but it appears that the said proceedings never attained finality. After remand and registration of fresh eviction proceedings in the interregnum, sons of Noor Mohammed, to whom the land in question was gifted, sold five bighas of land out of 20 bighas to Shri Champalal Chopra, by registered sale deed dated 13th of November 1973. 4. The Trust in the year ..promulgated a Scheme under the name "Section 7 Extension Scheme" wherein remaining 15 bighas of land in question was also indicated as part of it. While doing so, the Trust never made any endeavour for acquiring the aforesaid land and compensation was also not paid to the owners of the land in question. This sort of situation prompted Noor Mohammed, the original owner of the land, who donated the land to his sons, to ventilate his grievances before the Trust. On receipt of the objections of Noor Mohammed, matter was discussed threadbare in the Trust meeting and ultimately it was resolved on 29th of November 1979 to allot Shri Noor Mohammed 5% of the total land of 15 bighas or 1500 sq.mtrs. of land whichever is less subject to the condition that he would surrender the original Patta in favour of the Trust. When the resolution dated 29th of November 1979 was not acted upon, one of the donee's of Noor Mohammed, Shri Lal Mohammed in his personal capacity and as power of attorney holder of his remaining brothers instituted a civil suit before Munsif Court, Jodhpur, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No.139 of 1980. along-with the suit prayer was also made for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. After grant of temporary injunction, the Trust switched on to conciliatory mode and for resolving the problem convened its meeting on 29th of April 1983 and drawn proceedings which were ultimately confirmed in the Trust meeting dated 3rd of September 1983 to resolve the stalemate perpetually. As per the proceedings drawn by the Trust, a decision was taken for allotment of 15% of total 15 bighas of land in question to the family members of Noor Mohammed and an affirmative decision was taken for allotting developed land to them in Subhash Nagar Scheme of the Trust. As per the proceedings drawn by the Trust, a decision was taken for allotment of 15% of total 15 bighas of land in question to the family members of Noor Mohammed and an affirmative decision was taken for allotting developed land to them in Subhash Nagar Scheme of the Trust. The proceedings in the suit filed by Shri Lal Mohammed continued for more than a decade but finally it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6th of February 1995. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment, Lal Mohammed preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court but the said effort proved abortive and the appeal was also dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 12th of March 1996. From all these facts, it appears that Lal Mohammed lost interest in the litigation on account of resolution adopted by the Trust on 3rd of September 1983. The resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 was not given effect to by the Trust and 15% of developed land was not allotted in favour of family members of Noor Mohammed and that being so the donee's of Noor Mohammed including legal representatives of Mohammed Umar laid a civil suit before the District Judge, Jodhpur seeking implementation of the resolution of the Trust dated 3rd of September 1983. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur. 6. Contesting the suit on behalf of the Trust, an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was moved for rejection of plaint as it was barred by limitation. The learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur by its judgment dated 8th of January 2002 accepted the said application and rejected the plaint. The judgment dated 8th of January 2002 was assailed by the donee's of Noor Mohammed including the legal representatives of Mohammed Umar before this Court by way of preferring Civil First Appeal No.56 of 2002. The appeal was admitted by the Court and interim order was granted directing respondents to maintain status quo. Interim order was confirmed on 10th of October 2003. In the stay petition, which was filed in the first appeal, appellants therein prayed for a restraining order against the Trust for not auctioning the plots in Kamla Nehru Nagar for the reason that suitable land was not available in Subhash Nagar Scheme of the Trust. Interim order was confirmed on 10th of October 2003. In the stay petition, which was filed in the first appeal, appellants therein prayed for a restraining order against the Trust for not auctioning the plots in Kamla Nehru Nagar for the reason that suitable land was not available in Subhash Nagar Scheme of the Trust. Although interim stay order was operating in the first appeal, at the behest of Trust endeavour was made for auctioning various plots including plots situated in Sector 'A' of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension I. Thereupon, the appellants in the appeal, apprised the Trust about the subsistence of interim order by this Court. On objective consideration of the application submitted by the appellants in the first appeal, Trust by a public notice (Annex.12) suspended the auction proceedings Yet again power of attorney holders of donee's of Noor Mohammed submitted an application before the Trust on 12th of July 2002 that requisite land pursuant to resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 be allotted to them either in Subhash Nagar or in Kamla Nehru Nagar, however, no decision was taken by the Trust. In the meanwhile, donee's of Shri Noor Mohammed alienated their rights by an agreement dated 8th of May 2003 to the petitioner. Apart from execution of agreement, donee's of Noor Mohammed also executed a power of attorney in favour of Shri Ramesh Jain for giving effect to the agreement and taking other actions. 7. The stalemate continued and yet another application was submitted before the State Government on 15th of March 2004 requesting it to direct the Trust to execute resolution dated 3rd of September 1983. Taking cognisance of the said request, State Government solicited comments from the Trust, which was duly forwarded by the Trust on 1st of May 2004. A further clarification was sought from the Trust by the State Government by communication dated 5th of June 2004. Taking cognisance of the said request, State Government solicited comments from the Trust, which was duly forwarded by the Trust on 1st of May 2004. A further clarification was sought from the Trust by the State Government by communication dated 5th of June 2004. When the State Government came to know about the interim order granted by this Court in the first appeal, a communication dated 11th of July 2004 was addressed to the Trust to apprise its specific stand in the matter.Responding to the communication of the State Government, Trust on 30th of June 2004 informed the State Government that after 3rd of September 1983 no decision has been taken at the Trust level and the Trust shall abide by any decision taken by the State Government in this regard. The State Government thereupon sent a communication dated 16th of August 2005 to the Trust for executing resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 for ensuring implementation of the scheme of the Trust. It was also clarified that resolution aforesaid can be implemented subject to the condition that applicants withdraw the court proceedings. In compliance of the communication of the State Government, Secretary of the Trust informed Shri Ramesh Jain vide letter dated 31.10/5.11.2005 to withdraw the stay petition pending before this Court. Adhering to the said communication, requisite steps were taken by Shri Ramesh Jain and the stay petition was withdrawn on 18.11.2005. Immediately thereafter, Shri Ramesh Jain submitted the copy of the said order before the Trust. After withdrawal of the stay petition, a letter dated 18th of August 2007 was issued to the donee's of Noor Mohammed by the Trust for allotment of eight plots measuring total area of 4350 sq.yards and in the said letter Plot No.21 to 26, 63 & 64 in Sector 'A' of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension I, were allotted to the donee's of Noor Mohammed. On receipt of allotment letter, donee's of Noor Mohammed made endeavour for withdrawal of the appeal and the Court permitted them to withdraw the appeal by order dated 26th of September 2007. 8. The allotment made to the donee's of Noor Mohammed suffered a set-back at the behest of some busy bodies as certain complaints were made before the State Government. The State Government, on these complaints asked the Trust to offer its comments. 8. The allotment made to the donee's of Noor Mohammed suffered a set-back at the behest of some busy bodies as certain complaints were made before the State Government. The State Government, on these complaints asked the Trust to offer its comments. Responding to the said communication, Trust on 4th of September 2007 informed the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan that the complaints are subject to thorough examination. Thereafter, the State Government sent a communication to the Trust on 5th of November 2007 asking it to execute requisite exchange deeds/lease deeds in favour of the applicants. In the communication, it was also mentioned that the applicants have already withdrawn the case from this Court. The Trust promptly acted on the said communication and executed a deed of exchange covering plots No.21 to 26, 63 and 64 in Sector 'A' of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension I in favour of donee's of Noor Mohammed. Being purchaser of the rights of the part of the land from the donee's of Noor Mohammed, three sale-deeds in respect of plot No.22, 63 & 64 were executed in favour of petitioner on 10.09.2007 and 11.09.2007 respectively which were duly registered with the Sub Registrar crystallising their rights for the said plots. 9. After execution of the sale-deeds aforesaid, yet again a complaint was submitted before the then Chief Minister. In adherence of the directions of the Chief Minister, enquiry was conducted by Divisional Commissioner and a detailed report was submitted wherein it was pointed out that decision has been taken in accordance with Resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 and the decision/directions of the State Government. All these developments affirmatively established the right, title and interest of the petitioner on plots in question, however, sequence of events took yet another turn and Trust was dissolved and in its place Jodhpur Development Authority (for short, 'JDA') was constituted by the State legislature by enactment of Jodhpur Development Authority Act 2009 (for short, 'Act of 2009'). 10. All these developments affirmatively established the right, title and interest of the petitioner on plots in question, however, sequence of events took yet another turn and Trust was dissolved and in its place Jodhpur Development Authority (for short, 'JDA') was constituted by the State legislature by enactment of Jodhpur Development Authority Act 2009 (for short, 'Act of 2009'). 10. The JDA published a notification on 25th of January 2010 whereby the plots which were transferred in the name of do-ness of Noor Mohammed by way of exchange deed viz., Plot No.21 to 26, 63 & 64 in Sector 'A' of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension I Scheme were kept in abeyance and it was also conveyed to public at large that pursuant to a complaint, enquiry is pending for transfer of aforesaid plots. Assailing this sort of action of the JDA, petitioner has averred in the writ petition that after entering into compromise when the Trust has executed exchange deed and subsequent to that sale-deed has been executed in his favour of the petitioner by the donee's of Noor Mohammed, now this sort of action on the part of JDA is not desirable.It is also stated in the writ petition that by issuing such notification a resolution which was adopted by the then Trust and which has been executed by way of execution of exchange deed and subsequent transfer of property to the petitioner cannot be set at naught by an executive fiat. The petitioner has also submitted in the writ petition that although in resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 reference was for allotment of land in Subhash Nagar Scheme but the Trust has allotted these plots to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner in Kamla Nehru Nagar due to non-availability of suitable plots in Subhash Nagar and that is why Trust agreed to allot the land in exchange to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner in Sector 'A' of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension I. 11. On 18th of September 2009, the then Chief Minister again sent a letter to the Divisional Commissioner for making enquiry afresh in the matter by pointing out certain infirmities in the earlier report dated 21st of August 2009. In adherence of the aforesaid letter of the Chief Minister, Divisional Commissioner held denovo enquiry in the matter. On 18th of September 2009, the then Chief Minister again sent a letter to the Divisional Commissioner for making enquiry afresh in the matter by pointing out certain infirmities in the earlier report dated 21st of August 2009. In adherence of the aforesaid letter of the Chief Minister, Divisional Commissioner held denovo enquiry in the matter. The Divisional Commissioner conducted the enquiry and submitted its report that compromise ought not have been entered into by the Trust as at that stage the Patta which was the basis of this entire transaction was not properly examined. In the report, the Divisional Commissioner has expressed doubts about the legal sanctity of Patta and submitted in its report that a precious land of the State Government has been allotted collusively by the Trust. A recommendation was made by the Divisional Commissioner for examining the matter at the level of Urban Development Department and cancellation of lease deed. 12. Assailing the aforesaid enquiry of the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that findings of the Divisional Commissioner are perverse and are based on mere ipse-dixit without calling comments from JDA. The report is also challenged on the ground that it has been prepared without application of mind mechanically.In the pleading, the petitioner has also referred to the observations made by this Court in a PIL which was decided on 30th of January 2002. The petitioner has also made an attempt to impeach the enquiry report of Divisional Commissioner by categorizing it as perverse and the conclusions drawn by the Divisional Commissioner are based on the recommendations of his subordinate. It is also submitted that recommendations of Divisional commissioner have been made without considering provisions of the Urban Improvement Act 1959. Stating in the writ petition with emphasis that as a consequence of the compromise legal proceedings were withdrawn by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, the conclusions of the Divisional Commissioner that compromise was entered into in collusion with the Trust are unfounded and baseless. 13. On behalf of respondent No.1 & 3, reply to the writ petition is submitted. In the return, it was averred by the respondents that Noor Mohammed has miserably failed to produce any proof about the title over the property in question. 13. On behalf of respondent No.1 & 3, reply to the writ petition is submitted. In the return, it was averred by the respondents that Noor Mohammed has miserably failed to produce any proof about the title over the property in question. The respondents have taken the stand that Archives Officer has investigated the matter and found that Noor Mohammed has failed to produce any title over the property and accordingly on 31st of March 1970 the land of Noor Mohammed was treated as Nazul land. It is also averred in the reply that Noor Mohammed has made an attempt to mislead the authority by stating that land belongs to him on the basis of Imarati Patta which could not be verified from Sowabahi, hence it was proved that land being Nazul land was wrongly/illegally released in his favour. Stoutly defending the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Commissioner, it is submitted in the reply that Patta was forged and therefore the State Government by its order dated 16th of April 2012 directed the Commissioner JDA to verify the genuineness of the Imarti Patta and produce the same before this Court. In order to verify the genuineness of the Patta Bahi, Archeology Officer, Rajasthan State Archeology Department, Jodhpur was directed to verify the genuineness of the Patta in the Patta Bahi. Further, a committee was constituted vide order dated 19th of April 2012 to inspect Patta Bahi pertaining to Samvat year 1906-1911 and the petitioner was allowed to appear/inspect on 24th of April 2012 before three members committee and subsequently a report was submitted by Committee on 25.04.2012. In the report, it was found that Patta Bahi was in a very bad condition and the veracity of the said file was doubtful, hence it was concluded that Patta be verified by appropriate evidence. Thereafter, the matter was further referred to the State Government and the State Government directed JDA to enquire into the matter. A verification report was also solicited from Deputy Commissioner (West) on 19.12.2012. As the Archives Officer was unable to verify genuineness of Patta Bahi yet again enquiry was conducted by Deputy Commissioner (West) after discussion with the Secretary, JDA. Finally, it was concluded vide report dated 15.02.2013 that the document i.e. Patta Bahi's veracity and existence cannot be doubted. Document Annex.R/1 was also submitted with the reply indicating affirmative report about existence of Patta Bahi. 14. Finally, it was concluded vide report dated 15.02.2013 that the document i.e. Patta Bahi's veracity and existence cannot be doubted. Document Annex.R/1 was also submitted with the reply indicating affirmative report about existence of Patta Bahi. 14. The second respondent JDA has also submitted its reply wherein it is averred that Patta was forged one and therefore the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Commissioner is perfectly valid. Besides many objections, JDA has stated in the return that land which was in possession of Noor Mohammed is a Nazul land and belongs to State Government and as such all subsequent proceedings are void and vitiated. 15. Joining the issue with the petitioner, the second respondent has averred in the reply that Resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 by the Trust was not in consonance with the settled principles of allotment of land and that prompted objections and complaints at the level of Trust before the State Government. According to the version of the second respondent, enquiry conducted by the Divisional Commissioner was perfectly just and valid. A reference was also made in the reply about an independent enquiry conducted by a retired administrative officer for defending the impugned order. The sum and substance of the reply of JDA clearly and unequivocally depicts that it has made an affirmative attempt to eschew the Resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 by the Trust. While reiterating its stand about genuineness of the Patta, the second respondent has submitted that the compromise was absolutely null and void and therefore for rescinding the same principles of estoppel are not attracted as there cannot be estoppel against the law. 16. The petitioner submitted a rejoinder to the reply submitted on behalf of the second respondent and reiterated the stand which was emphasised in the writ petition. along-with the rejoinder, petitioner has placed on record nine more documents. The petitioner has also placed on record communications Annex.39 & 40 with a view to indicate that genuineness of Imarati Patta was thoroughly examined at all the levels. According to the petitioner, matter was also referred to Archives Department and note sheets to this effect are also produced. A vital fact that Patta as such was sent to Archives Department, Bikaner with an employee of Bahi Branch of the office of Archives Department, Jodhpur is also mentioned. According to the petitioner, matter was also referred to Archives Department and note sheets to this effect are also produced. A vital fact that Patta as such was sent to Archives Department, Bikaner with an employee of Bahi Branch of the office of Archives Department, Jodhpur is also mentioned. The petitioner has also placed on record the order dated 26th of September 2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on a revision petition preferred by one Shri Radhey Shyam. By the said order, revision petition was rejected and the compromise which was entered into between the donees of Noor Mohammed and Trust and all subsequent proceedings were approved by the Divisional Commissioner. Office nothings were also placed on record by the petitioner, which were obtained under the RTI Act with specific emphasis on the nothing dated 15th of February 2013 which clearly and unequivocally reveals that authenticity and existence of Patta cannot be doubted. In the rejoinder, petitioner has also impeached the enquiry report of retired Administrative Officer Shri M.K. Khanna by asserting that the said report is based on hearsay, fragmentary evidence and on speculations. 17. After rejoinder on behalf of second respondent one more counter affidavit of its Deputy Commissioner (West) was submitted. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has virtually conceded that there is no doubt about genuineness of the Patta as per entry made in the Patta Bahi. In the counter affidavit, it is also submitted that the enquiry which was earlier instituted against some of the officers of the Trust, have been closed for the reason that action of JDA/Trust in issuing Pattas cannot be faulted. The officers' action in issuance of lease deed at the relevant time is also defended being in consonance with directions of the State Government. 18. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, submits that there is umpteen materials available on record to show that Bahi Patta issued in favour of predecessor-in title of the petitioner is genuine one and therefore impugned orders cannot be sustained. Mr. Singhvi has argued that Archives Department has thoroughly examined the genuineness of the Patta and thereafter it has recorded a definite finding that existence and authenticity of the Patta cannot be doubted and therefore on the strength of said finding of the Archives Department impugned orders have lost their credibility/sanctity for all practical purposes. 19. Mr. Mr. Singhvi has argued that Archives Department has thoroughly examined the genuineness of the Patta and thereafter it has recorded a definite finding that existence and authenticity of the Patta cannot be doubted and therefore on the strength of said finding of the Archives Department impugned orders have lost their credibility/sanctity for all practical purposes. 19. Mr. Singhvi would contend that in view of the conclusions of the Archives Department that there is no shadow of doubt about ownership of the predecessor-in title of the petitioner on the disputed land, implementation of the resolution of the Trust dated 3rd of September 1983 is a just decision rendering impugned orders vulnerable. With these submissions, learned Senior Counsel has urged that once veracity of Imarati Patta is adjudged and verified, doubts expressed in the impugned orders about the genuineness of the Patta vanishes automatically and therefore impugned orders cannot be sustained. 20. Mr. Singhvi, while confining his arguments to the factual matrix of the case would urge that the so called objection about Bahi Patta stands repudiated in view of clear and unequivocal finding of the Archives Department respondents cannot be allowed to interfere with the title, possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the plots in question on the strength of impugned orders. 21. Well it is true that in the present case the issue relating to genuineness of Bahi-Patta no more survives but the ratio decidendi of the judgments on which learned counsel Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance deserve mention in the order. In Civil Regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1978 (State of Rajasthan v. Ramkishan & Ors.), decided on 18th May 1993 , the learned Single Judge, while examining the title of an individual derived on the strength of Patta- Talika-Bahi, which was hand written, made following observations: "It is also not proved that all the entries in talika-bahi are in the hand-writing of one and the same person. In the absence of any such proof, it cannot be said, merely on the ground, even it to be assumed, that the handwriting of entry in respect of patta of 1886 in patta-talika-bahi being of different person then those who have written other entries in the patta-talika-bai, necessarily lead to conclusion that particular entry in question is forged or interpolated. In the absence of any such proof, it cannot be said, merely on the ground, even it to be assumed, that the handwriting of entry in respect of patta of 1886 in patta-talika-bahi being of different person then those who have written other entries in the patta-talika-bai, necessarily lead to conclusion that particular entry in question is forged or interpolated. Unless it is proved, that it was obligatory and was required that all the entries in patta-talika-bahi were recorded in the hand writing of one and the same person, throughout his tenure, the mere fact that different entries in patta-talika-bahi are in the hand-writing of different persons; does not lead to inference that the entries made in patta-talika-bahi, in respect of pattas in question, are forged. As I have noticed above, that so far as the land other than ABCD, shown in Ex.1 is concerned, the main ground of forming the opinion about the genuineness of patta were that there is no entry of patta dated Kartik Sud 7, 1867 in the patta-bahis of Revenue Department and, that the defendant had not secured any patta after 1907 in their name and, that the writing of sale deed made in favour of ancestors of Ramakishan was not produced. Patta of 1867 has been produced in original before this Court. The bahis of 1867 were not made available to the defendant Ramakishan for inspection when he asked for it, and now mere statement that there is no entry of said patta in patta-bahis of 1867, without even attempting to prove that pattabahis of 1867 is available in record after 1962, much credence cannot be given. Moreover, the sale-deed in favour of defendant's ancestors have been produced in the court in original, which is a document of over 100 years old. From the entry of the patta in the name of Maghdutt in the record produced by the plaintiffs themselves in the form of patta-bahi of Svt 1908 as Ex.18, about the genuineness of which there is no dispute; proves that a patta was obtained by Maghdutt, ancestor of defendant No.1, in Svt. 1908, of the disputed land. The defendant's case have always been that there did exist a patta of this land but which is not traceable with him. 1908, of the disputed land. The defendant's case have always been that there did exist a patta of this land but which is not traceable with him. Hence, no adverse interference can be drawn against the defendant from non-production of patta in the name of Maghdutt in respect of land EABGF. 22. The aforesaid verdict of the learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench while dismissing D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.20 of 2001 on 26th of February 2008. While concurring with the findings of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench made following observations pertaining to grant of Patta to an individual as per entry in the Patta Talika Bahi: "Then, Ex.-11 is the entry of Patta Talika Bahi of 1886, and these documents Ex.A-9, Ex.11, Ex.A-27 and 28, have been found by the learned Single Judge to be more than 30 years old, and produced from proper custody, attracting presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. As noticed above the suit was filed in the year 1965. Obviously, therefore, even as on the date of suit itself, documents were more than 30 years old. Then, regarding documents being Patta Talika Bahis, which have been produced from proper custody, being through the officers of the Archives Department, and therefore, in the case of these documents, Section 81 of the Evidence Act enjoins a duty on the court, to presume their genuineness. It is a different story, that genuineness of these documents has not been disputed either. Then Ex.18 is the entry in the Patta Talika Bahi of Samvat 2008, about grant of Patta in favour of Mugdutt, consequent upon purchase by him in the year 1907. These entries also attract presumption under Section 81 of the Evidence Act. With this Ex.27 and 28 are million dollar circumstances against the plaintiff; apart from, even Ex.A-7, being the order of the State Government itself recognising defendant's title. 23. Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 30th of January 2002, which was rendered in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.3736 of 2000 (Jugal Kishore v. UIT & Ors.) & Civil Second Appeal No.91 of 2001 (UIT v. Innocent son of Lakhpat Singh) . 23. Learned counsel Mr. Singhvi has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 30th of January 2002, which was rendered in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.3736 of 2000 (Jugal Kishore v. UIT & Ors.) & Civil Second Appeal No.91 of 2001 (UIT v. Innocent son of Lakhpat Singh) . In the said verdict, the Division Bench has approved the approach of the Trust to settle the dispute amicably by way of compromise by resorting to Section 96 of the Act of 1959. 24. Learned Government Counsel Ms. Kusum Rao has not contested on the factual aspects and the question of law involved in the matter. Ms. Kusum Rao, while relying on communication dated 23rd of May 2014 (Annex.R/1) submitted that in view of clear recitals there remains no doubt about veracity of Imarati Patta and that being so, the matter is liable to be adjudicated accordingly. 25. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for JDA has also fully concurred with the submission of learned Government Counsel Ms. Kusum Rao and submitted that on the basis of note sheets dated 15th of February 2013, there remains no room of doubt about the genuineness, authenticity and existence of Bahi Patta issued in favour of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. With these submissions, learned counsel Mr. Bhandari would contend that matter has been examined threadbare by JDA and enquiry which was initiated against some of the officers have been dropped and therefore matter deserves to be decided in terms of the report of Archives Department. 26. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 27. Legal sanctity of title on a land allotted to an incumbent by issuance of Bahi-Patta during the regime of the erstwhile Princely State of Jodhpur was the genesis of all these litigation's at the threshold. Now considering concurring stand of both the learned counsel for the respondents favourable to the petitioners as such there remains no lis requiring adjudication. As per the changed scenario, respondents have shown a pragmatic vision to alter their stand after making thorough enquiry about the genuineness of the Patta. Now considering concurring stand of both the learned counsel for the respondents favourable to the petitioners as such there remains no lis requiring adjudication. As per the changed scenario, respondents have shown a pragmatic vision to alter their stand after making thorough enquiry about the genuineness of the Patta. The conclusions of the respondents about genuineness and authenticity of Bahi Patta also finds support from the verdict of this Court dated 18th of May 1993 in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 31 of 1978 (State of Rajasthan v. Ramkishan & Ors.) (supra), which is affirmed by the Division Bench. 28. In view of the fact that the respondents have conceded about genuineness of the Patta which was earlier acknowledged by the Trust as such for making allotment of developed land to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners by Resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 and by way of its ratification/approval JDA has executed exchange deed and allotted plots No.21 to 26, 63 & 64 to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, there remains no legal impediment for the petitioners to enjoy their right, title and interest over the plots in question. After prolonged litigation, the respondents have finally took an affirmative decision about genuineness of Bahi Patta and acknowledged the title of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, obviously makes allotment of Plots No.21 to 26, 63 and 64 to the donee's of Noor Mohammed as a consequence of Trust Resolution dated 3rd of September 1983 and their subsequent transfer/alienation to the petitioners just and proper resultantly rendering impugned general notification dated 26.01.2010 (Annex.33) and the report of the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 3rd of June 2010 (Annex.35) redundant and ineffective. 29. Consequently, all these writ petitions are allowed, the General Notification Annex.33 and Report of Divisional Commissioner Annex.35 are hereby annulled and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the title, possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plots No.21 to 26, 63 and 64 situated at Kamla Nehru Nagar Extension I, Sector 'A', Jodhpur. 30. Costs are made easy. 31. A copy of this order be placed in each file.Petitions Dismissed. *******