JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 31.5.13 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a second appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.04 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Jodhpur, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 10.5.04 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, has been allowed and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 10.5.04 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jodhpur, dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction preferred by the petitioner herein, stands restored. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the State in respect of the land ad measuring 25 big has comprising khasra no.66 situated at Nagaur Road. The petitioner claimed that he is in peaceful possession of the land in question since Samvat 2012 and even the recommendations were made by the competent authority for regularisation of his possession. According to the petitioner, he being in possession of the land since Samvat 2012, was entitled to be declared khatedar tenant by virtue of provisions of Section 13, 15 & 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ( for short "the Act"). 3. After due consideration of the evidence on record, the Assistant Collector arrived at the finding that there is no evidence on record showing that the petitioner was in possession of the land since Samvat 2012. It was found that the petitioner encroached upon the land in Samvat 2026 and the proceedings were initiated against him under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ( for short "the Act of 1956"). The Assistant Collector also arrived at the finding that the land in question belongs to Department of Forest and falls within the Municipal limit of Municipal Council, Nagaur and therefore, the Tehsildar, could not have made the recommendations for regularisation of the land in question. Accordingly, the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.04. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the RAA, Jodhpur. The RAA arrived at the finding that on the basis of the oral evidence, the possession of the petitioner over the land in question since Samvat 2012 stands proved and there is no evidence on record to show as to when the petitioner was physically evicted from the land in question. The RAA arrived at the finding that on the basis of the oral evidence, the possession of the petitioner over the land in question since Samvat 2012 stands proved and there is no evidence on record to show as to when the petitioner was physically evicted from the land in question. The RAA arrived at the finding that since the petitioner is in possession of the land for more than 30 years to the knowledge of the State Government and therefore, he has acquired khatedari rights over the land in question by adverse possession. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the RAA vide order dated 30.12.04 and the suit preferred was decreed as prayed for. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the RAA as aforesaid, the State preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, which stands allowed vide order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in holding that the petitioner had not filed any document showing his possession over the land in question since Samvat 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the factum of petitioner's possession over the land in question stands admitted by Tehsildar. Learned counsel submitted that the Forest Department holds 121.19 big has of land, which is already covered by fencing and thus, the Board of Revenue has seriously erred in holding that the land occupied by the petitioner is forest land. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the petitioner is in cultivatory possession of the land in question for more than 60 years and thus, cannot be deprived from khatedari rights over the same. 7. On the other hand, the Government counsel while supporting the finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue, contended that there was no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question since Samvat 2012. Learned counsel submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 and he was evicted from the land in question and penalty was also imposed. Learned counsel submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 and he was evicted from the land in question and penalty was also imposed. Learned counsel urged that merely on the basis of long possession as trespasser over the land in question, nobody can claim khatedari rights over the same and therefore, the order passed by the RAA was ex facie illegal and the same has rightly been set aside by the Board of Revenue. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. It is to be noticed that in the first instance, when the matter was taken up by this court for admission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had taken the stand before this court that the petitioners are in possession of the land of khasra no.66/3 over about 70 years, however, the Board of Revenue held it to be the land of Forest Department though, the land of the Forest Department is of khasra no.66 and not 66/3 as delineated in map Annexure 2, placed on record. Accordingly, while noticing the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as aforesaid, a coordinate Bench this court passed an order in the following terms: "Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the present petitions vide order dated Annex.7 dated 30.12.2004, however, the learned Board of Revenue has erred in allowing the State's appeal by the impugned order Annex.9 dated 31.05.2013 and holding that the petitioners were not entitled to regularisation of their land, statued in Khasra No. 66/3 ad-measuring about 12 Bighas even though land on the basis of long possession of 70 years, in favour of one Salagram was regularised by the respondent Revenue Department. He further argued that though the petitioners are in possession of the land of Khasra No.66/3 over about 70 years, the learned Board of Revenue held it to be land of Forest Department though the land of Forest Department is of Khasra No.66 and not of Khasra No.66/3 as delineated in the Map Annex.2 at Page 16 of the paper book. The matter requires consideration. Issue show cause notice to the respondent/s. Copy of this order may also be sent to be respondent/s along-with notice. Rule is made returnable within four weeks. "Dasti". The matter requires consideration. Issue show cause notice to the respondent/s. Copy of this order may also be sent to be respondent/s along-with notice. Rule is made returnable within four weeks. "Dasti". Direct service permitted. Counsel to file proof of service on the respondent/s, and not merely proof of dispatch of notices, before the next date positively. In the alternative, affidavit of the counsel/party of compliance to the extent made, be filed. In the meanwhile, the status quo of the possession of the petitioners shall be maintained. (Dr. Vineet Kothari),J." 10. A perusal of the documents on record manifestly show that the claim of the petitioner was for regularisation of 25 big has land comprising khasra no.66 and not khasra no. 66/3 as contended before this court, at the first instance, when the matter was taken up for admission hearing. On being confronted with the contents of the aforesaid order dated 11.9.13 reproduced herein above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the correct facts were not brought to the notice of the court. 11. Be that as it may. A bare perusal of the documents on record show that the petitioner claimed regularisation of possession over the land measuring 25 bighas, comprising khasra no.66. Admittedly, there was no documentary evidence on record showing that the petitioner was in possession over the land in question since Samvat 2012 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for declaration of khatedari right over the land in question in terms of provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1955, was rightly rejected by the trial court. As a matter of fact, there was no evidence produced on record showing the possession of the petitioner over the land in question prior to Samvat 2026. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 and order evicting the petitioner and imposing penalty was passed by the competent authority. It is a matter of record that the land in question is forest land and falls within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Nagaur and therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court that Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to recommend regularisation of possession of the petitioner over the land in question, cannot be faulted with. It is a matter of record that the land in question is forest land and falls within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Nagaur and therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial court that Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to recommend regularisation of possession of the petitioner over the land in question, cannot be faulted with. It is to be noticed that the RAA has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector and decreed the suit preferred on the basis of the adverse possession saying that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question for last more than 30 years to the knowledge of the State Government. It is pertinent to note that the title over the land by adverse possession was not pleaded and proved by the petitioner and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the RAA on the basis of the adverse possession was ex facie erroneous. 12. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the Board of Revenue has committed no error in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the RAA and restoring the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, dismissing the suit preferred by the petitioner. 13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******