JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned Single judge in writ petitions preferred by appellant - Ganpal Lal and Ors., whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8.8.1997. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Tehsildar, Jodhpur, in the years 1977, 1979 and 1980 issued notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short the Act of 1956' hereinafter) to one Ramchandra-father of the appellants stating therein that he encroached over the Government land of Khasra Nos. 123 and 125 of Village Sunthala, Tehsil and District Jodhpur and, therefore, why he should not be dispossessed from the said land or why the penalty be not imposed upon him. 3. On 11.2.1981, the appellants filed a revenue suit in the Court of S.D.O. Jodhpur for declaration of Khatedari rights and for grant of injunction, while claiming that they had cultivatory possession of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 situated in village Sunthala, Tehsil and District Jodhpur. It was contended that in Khasra No. 125, they had 16 Bighas and 11 Biswas of the land and 9 Bighas of the land in Khasra No. 123. The basis of the claim of the appellants was a parcha Khatoni pertaining to Samvat Year 2008 corresponding to year 1951 approximately. The appellants have claimed that in the said Parcha Khatoni, name of their father was entered as Khatedar and on the basis of Bigodi receipts, pertaining to Samvat year 2008 corresponding to the year 2022, other revenue records, it is clear that the father of the appellants was Khatedar of 16 Bighas and 11 Biswas of the land of Khasra No. 125 and of 09 Bighas of Khasra No. 123, however later on the land was wrongly entered as Government land, therefore, they are entitled for declaration of Khatedari rights in their favour and are also entitled for injunction issued in their favour for restraining the State from interfering in their possession' over the land in question. 4. In the said suit, the Rajasthan Housing Board was impleaded as party defendant by the order of the Trial Court and the said suit was contested by it. 4. In the said suit, the Rajasthan Housing Board was impleaded as party defendant by the order of the Trial Court and the said suit was contested by it. According to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Khasra No. 123, having an area of 65 Bighas and 85 Biswas and Khasra No. 125, having an area of 54 Bighas and 16 Biswas was recorded as Siwai Chak in the revenue records and the State Government, after acquiring the same, transferred it to Rajasthan Housing after charing premium from it. It was claimed that acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra No. 123 were completed in the year 1976 and possession of the and comprising of Khasra No. 123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.9.1978 and thereafter, mutation was also carried out in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board on 23.1.1980. It was further claimed by the Rajasthan Housing Board that in respect of Khasra No. 125 of village Sunthala, the acquisition proceedings were completed on 16.7.1980 and the possession of the and comprising of said Khasra was handed over to Housing Board on 13.11.1980 and thereafter mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board on 11.5.1981. It was also claimed on behalf of the defendant Rajasthan Housing Board that the appellants never raised any objection regarding the acquisition proceedings which were concluded on 16.9.1978 and 16.7.1980 respectively and the land of the above mentioned Khasras is in the possession of the Rajasthan Housing Board and, therefore the claim of the appellants for declaration of Khatedari rights and grant of injunction against the defendants is not maintainable. 5. After trial of the suit, the S.D.O., Jodhpur decreed the suit vide judgment dated 9.5.1985 and the appellants were declared as Khatedar of 9 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 123 and 16 Bighas and 11 Biswas of Khasra No. 125. A decree for lermanent injunction was also granted against the defendant restraining them or interfering with the possession of the appellants. 6. Against the judgment and decree 9.5.1995, separate appeals were preferred by the State of Rajasthan as well as by the Rajasthan Housing Board before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, however, the Revenue Appellate authority dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 12.2.1986. 7. 6. Against the judgment and decree 9.5.1995, separate appeals were preferred by the State of Rajasthan as well as by the Rajasthan Housing Board before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, however, the Revenue Appellate authority dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 12.2.1986. 7. The State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Housing Board filed two second appeals before the Board of Revenue being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the S.D.O. as well as by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 8.8.1997, allowed the said appeals. 8. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants filed the writ petitions before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.11.2003, against which the present appeals have been preferred. 9. In the present appeals, on 14.11.2013 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that Advocate Mr. S.N. Bohra and Mr. R.K. Bhatiya appearing on behalf of the appellants - Ganpat Lal and others have passed away and Shri D.D. Chhangani, Advocate appearing along with them is also not attending the case and, therefore, this Court has directed the Registry to send notices to the appellant No. 1, who was one of the respondents in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 185/2004, through registered post with AD. The notices sent by the Registry in pursuance of the order dated 14.11.2013 to the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 received inserved with a remark that despite several efforts, the whereabouts of appellant No. 1 - Ganpat Lal could not be traced. In such circumstances, this Court has requested Shri H.R. Soni, Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae as he was appearing for the appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 185/2004, in which similar controversy is involved. Shri H.R. Soni is kind enough to assist the Court and pursuant to that we have heard him on behalf of the appellants. 10. Shri H.R. Soni, while reiterating the arguments raised before the learned Single Judge has submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in upsetting the findings arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 10. Shri H.R. Soni, while reiterating the arguments raised before the learned Single Judge has submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed illegality in upsetting the findings arrived at by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. It is contended that while exercising powers under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as a second Appellate Court, it cannot undertake the task of appreciation of evidence with a view to find out whether the finding recorded by two Courts were rightly recorded or not or whether some other findings could be recorded on appreciation of such evidence or some other inference could be drawn. It is contended that the second Appellate Court can only examine jurisdictional issues arises in the case and not the factual one. The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has erred in confirming the findings of the Board of Revenue. 11. Mr. Soni has further contended that Parcha Khatoni (Exp.-l) pertaining to Smvat Year 2008 was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit without any objection on the part of the defendants. Plaintiff - Ganpat Lal in his statement, had made it clear that the said document is available with him. It is contended that if tendering of the photo copy of the Parcha Khatoni pertaining to the year 2008 would have been objected to by the defendant, the appellant - Ganpat Lal would have tendered the same in evidence either in original or a certified copy but when the defendant has not objected to it, the same has rightly been relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. It is farther contended that the Board of Revenue has wrongly held that the said Exp.-l is not admissible in evidence being a photo copy. 12. It is also argued by Mr. Soni that the acquisition proceedings, on which the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have placed reliance were absolutely illegal since the appellants have not been served with any notice from the competent authority and has also not been awarded any compensation in lieu of the said acquisition, whereas, the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have wrongly passed the impugned orders, while placing the reliance on said acquisition proceedings. Mr. Mr. Soni has further argued that so called acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 of Village Sunthala have been declared as lapsed by the Urban Development and Housing Department on 14.2.1992 and in view of the said position, the claim of the respondent - Housing Board over the land of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 cannot be maintained. 13. In support of his arguments, Mr. Soni has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatchalya Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, 2003 Law Suit (SC) 974 ; Patasai Devi v. State oo Haryana and Ors., 2012 Law Suit (SC) 569 as well as of this Court in Shwarn Singh v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors., 2011 Law Suit (Raj) 707 and has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court may kindly be restored. 14. Per contra, Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Senior Counsel and Mr. D.D. Purohit, Counsel for the Housing Board have argued that the learned Single Judge has taken into . consideration each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly passed the order dated 13.11.2003. It is contended that the Board of Revenue has also taken into consideration the material available on record and found that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim for Khatedari right' over the land in question and the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have wrongly decreed the suit filed by the appellants without there being any evidence in favour of the appellants. It is also, contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 were initiated way back in the years 1976 and 1979 respectively and were concluded in the year 1976 and 1980 respectively but the appellants have never challenged the said proceedings at any point of time and, therefore, the claim of the appellants for Khatedari rights or for grant of injunction was extinguished as per the provisions of Section 63(iii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955' hereinafter). It is also contended that no Khatedari rights can be accrued in a land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility as per provisions of Section 16(vi) of the Act of 1955 and in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that in view of the provisions of Sections 63(iii) and 16(vi) of the Act of 1955, the suit filed by the appellants for declaration of Khatedari rights and for grant of injunction was prohibited in law and the Trial Court has wrongly entertained the same. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the documentary evidence produced by the appellants before the Trial Court i.e. Parcha Khatoni of the year 1956 was not at all admissible in evidence because the same was a photo copy of the document and was not even signed by any of the authorities. It is further contended that the said documents was not in existence in the revenue record as in an enquiry, it was found that there exists no corresponding entries to the said document in the revenue record and, therefore the said document cannot be treated as authenticated document. It is also contended that when the existence of the Parcha Khatoni of the year 1956 was not established, then any right declared on the basis of the said document cannot be sustained. On the strength the above arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondents have prayed for dismissal of these appeals. 15. Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the material placed on record. 16. It is not in dispute that the appellants filed a suit for claiming Khatedari rights and for grant of injunction on the basis of Parcha Khatoni (Exp.-l) pertaining to the year 1956 while claiming that in the said document, name of their father was shown as Khatedar. However, the said document was a photo . copy and was not produced in original. It has also come on record that no corresponding entry to the said document exists in the revenue record. From/perusal of the said document, it is not borne out that which authority has issued the same. However, the said document was a photo . copy and was not produced in original. It has also come on record that no corresponding entry to the said document exists in the revenue record. From/perusal of the said document, it is not borne out that which authority has issued the same. It is true that during the course of trial, if any document is produced and exhibited in evidence without any objection regarding its admissibility, at a subsequent stage it is not permissible in routine course to question the admissibility of said documents, however when the existence of document or the authenticity of document is doubtful, it is always open for the party concerned to question it or the Court dealing with it, to examine the very existence of the said document or authenticity and the said document. In the case in hand, the existence of Parcha Khatoni, on the basis of which the appellants have claimed Khatedari rights and grant of injunction was not established and it is found that no such Parcha Khatoni exists in the revenue record. In such circumstances, when the appellants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to the effect that their father was the Khatedar of the land of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 of village Sunthala, the Trial Court has certainly erred in declaring Khatedari rights in favour of the appellants for the land in dispute. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have taken into consideration the material available on record in its entirety and held that the appellants have failed to produce sufficient evidence for grant of Khatedari rights in their favour in respect of the land in question and in the present set of circumstances, we are of the opinion that the said findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as the Board Revenue are not liable to be interfered with. 17. Apart from that, it is not in dispute that the land of Khasra No. 123 of Village Suthala was acquired by the State Government vide acquisition proceedings, initiated on 22.2.1976 and concluded on 28.10.1976. The possession of the land of Khasra No. 123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.9.1978 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of it on 23.1.1980. The possession of the land of Khasra No. 123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.9.1978 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of it on 23.1.1980. Similarly, in respect of Khasra No. 125, the acquisition proceedings were initiated on 16.5.1979 and concluded on 16.7.1980 and the possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 13.11.1980 and mutation was also sanctioned in its favour on 11.5.1981. The said acquisition proceedings were never challenged by the appellants and therefore, they became final. The contention of the appellants that the said acquisition proceedings were declared as lapsed vide order dated 14.2.1992, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Urban Development and Housing Department, is countered by the Rajasthan Housing Board by producing copy of the order dated 11.9.2001 whereby the same authority has withdrawn the order dated 14.2.1992, while observing that the declaration of lapse of the acquisition proceedings was not in accordance with law. 18. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that when the acquisition of the land in question is intact, the suit filed by the appellants for grant of Khatedari rights was not maintainable as per the provisions of Sections 63(iii) and 16(vi) of Act of 1955. 19. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.Appeal allowed. *******