JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge order Annex.-4 dated 26.7.1994 whereby the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner made reference for the land in question under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, so also, order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the District Collector-cum-Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner and judgment dated 19.5.2007 whereby reference made under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by the District Collector-cum-Deputy commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner was accepted and order dated 22.5.1979 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Colonization), Kolayat was set aside. 2. As per facts of the case, father of the petitioners late Hazi Meve Khan moved an application for correction of the revenue record before the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat for the land situated in village Aagnew. The Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat by its order dated 22.5.1979 accepted the application for correction of. the record made by late Hazi Meve Khan and, against that, State of Rajasthan filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate. Authority and that appeal was dismissed vide order dated 31.12.1985. 3. In the year 1988, the State of Rajasthan filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner for making reference to the Board of Revenue against order dated 22.5.1979. The District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner passed an order on 26.7.1994 whereby the reference was made against the judgment dated 22.5.1979 whereby correction application filed by late Hazi Meve Khan was accepted and Board of Revenue, Ajmer by its order dated 16.4.1998 remitted the matter while giving a note of observation to the District Collector to make reference in accordance with rules in view of the fact that objection was raised by the petitioners that the Revenue Appellate Authority has maintained the order dated 22.5.1979. 4. After remand, the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner made a reference vide order dated 11.12.2003 under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 19.5.2007 where the reference made by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner was accepted and while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 340 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kdlayat dated 22.5.1979. 5. The Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 19.5.2007 where the reference made by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner was accepted and while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 340 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kdlayat dated 22.5.1979. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the validity of order dated 26.7.1994 whereby first reference was made and order dated 11.12.2003 passed by the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner whereby, again, the said authority made reference after remand and order dated 19.5.2007 whereby the Board of Revenue, Ajmer accepted the reference and set aside the order dated 22.5.1979. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for correction was accepted on 22.5.1979 against which an appeal was preferred by the State but the same was also dismissed on 31.12.1985 but ignoring the said fact the Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner illegally made reference in exercise of the power under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 after 9 years, therefore, all the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed on the ground of delay. 7. Further, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 22.5.1979 is perfectly justified order because as per the revenue record late Hazi Meve Khan was in possession of the land in question for which he made application for correction in the entry and that order was upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, there is no question to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat as well as Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in appeal but the Board of Revenue, Ajmer committed gross error because the order of the appellate authority became final. 8. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Chutra & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Another, reported in 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.) 71 , so also, judgment rendered in the case of Hari Ram & Another v. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 1996 RRD 538 : 1996 (2) DNJ (Raj) 397 and submits that the orders impugned may be quashed. 9. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State vehemently submits that there is no illegality in the orders impugned in this writ petition; more so, this writ petition was preferred in the year 2010 challenging the validity of order dated 19.5.2007 after delay of 3 years, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is also pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat dated 22.5.1979 was illegal on the ground that there was no documentary evidence upon which entry was to be made on the basis of possession and, here/in this case also, no documentary evidence is produced to prove the fact that late Meve Khan was having possession over the land int question. In fact, the land in question was recorded as "Savay Chak" but ignoring all the facts the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat and Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner passed impugned orders, therefore, it was felt necessary to make reference by the State of Rajasthan and, in the reference proceedings, the Board of Revenue after due examination of the fact that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the fact that late Meve Khan was ever in possession of the land in question, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders impugned. 10. With regard to the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that in both the judgments civil decree was passed after due trial, therefore, the co-ordinate Bench rendered the judgment whereby order of reference was set aside but, in this case, there is no adjudication by any competent Court. 11. After hearing learned Counsel tor the parties, I have perused entire of the case. 12. Admittedly, reference was made in the year 1988 after judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in the year 1985, therefore, the objection of learned Counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in law. 11. After hearing learned Counsel tor the parties, I have perused entire of the case. 12. Admittedly, reference was made in the year 1988 after judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in the year 1985, therefore, the objection of learned Counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in law. With regard to the second contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the judgment dated 22.5.1979 passed by the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat as well as judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner became final, therefore, reference cannot be made, for this argument, I am of the opinion that both these judgments are not even relevant for the purpose of proving the fact that late Meve Khan was in possession of the land in question; more so, the petitioners did not appear before the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Colonization), Bikaner on the date of hearing. 13. According to the order of reference, so also, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue, it is abundantly clear that there was no documentary evidence/record before the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat to prove the fact that late Meve Khan was ever in possession of the land in question which is 140 bigha; meaning thereby, the Assistant Colonization Commissioner, Kolayat wrongly accepted the application for correction without any evidence and the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner also upheld the said order passed upon the application for correction. In the opinion of this Court both the orders do not create any right or title in favour of the petitioners because the correction application was made on the basis of presumed right over the land in question but, in fact, no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioners/late Hazi Meve Khan before the Assistant Colonization Commissioner to prove the fact that they are having any title over the land and how the entries were made in the settlement proceedings. In view of the above facts and circumstances the judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners are not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present controversy. In view of aforesaid, there is no force in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******