JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 7th December, 1977, 1st July, 1997 and 22nd November, 2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively. A further prayer is made to restore the order dated 6th December, 1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 2. It is a case where petitioners filed a suit for ejectment under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"). It was alleged that possession of the land was given to the respondents for a period of six months. It was not given back thus be evicted. The incidence was shown to be of 11th July, 1952. The suit preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. It was mainly in reference to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11th January, 1968 in a suit preferred by the respondents to claim khatedari rights and was decreed. It was filed subsequent to the suit preferred by the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed with remand of the case to the SDO court. The suit preferred by the respondents was dismissed for non-prosecution thus no declaration of khatedari right exists in their favour. 3. The suit for ejectment filed by the petitioners was dismissed finding that respondents have been declared khatedar in a separate suit decided on 11th January, 1968 thus petitioners cannot claim eviction of the respondents. The SDO court as well as Revenue Appellate Authority further discussed the evidence also. It was found that respondents were in possession of the land even prior to the year 1952 thus based on their possession as well as the order passed in the criminal case, the suit for eviction was dismissed. 4. The case of the petitioners is that their name entered in the revenue record as khatedar prior to the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for short "the Act of 1952"). By virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 1952, they became khatedar. It was even under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955. 4. The case of the petitioners is that their name entered in the revenue record as khatedar prior to the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (for short "the Act of 1952"). By virtue of Section 9 of the Act of 1952, they became khatedar. It was even under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955. So far as respondents are concerned, they were not declared as khatedar inasmuch as order passed by the SDO court on 11th January, 1968 was reversed by the Revenue Appellate Authority with remand of the case. On remand, suit preferred by the respondents was dismissed for non-prosecution. Ignoring the aforesaid, all the revenue courts have decided the issue against the petitioners. It is on the pretext that orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the SDO court in a suit filed by the respondents have not been submitted, whereas, it was on record. Thus perverse finding has been recorded by the revenue courts. 5. It is also stated that respondents could not show their rights in the land. They have to be considered as trespassers, thereby, Section 183 of the Act of 1955 applies. The possession can be saved if right in the land is shown. Ignoring the aforesaid, revenue courts dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners. A reference of the Act of 1952 and 1955 has been given by the revenue courts to hold that petitioners did not seek declaration of khatedari rights ignoring the fact that petitioners' name was existing as khatedar in the revenue record, thus declaration was not required. In view of the above, orders of the revenue courts deserve to be dismissed as they suffer from perversity and illegality. A reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Onkarmal & Anr. v. Banwarilal & Ors., reported in AIR 1962 Rajasthan 127 has been given. 6. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the petition. It is submitted that a suit for possession/eviction can be maintained under Sections 177, 180 and 183 of the Act of 1955. The suit in the instant case was filed under Section 183 of the Act of 1955. The petitioners failed to make out a case for eviction. The evidence available on record shows possession of the respondents even prior to the year 1952. They cannot be considered to be trespassers so as to be evicted. The suit in the instant case was filed under Section 183 of the Act of 1955. The petitioners failed to make out a case for eviction. The evidence available on record shows possession of the respondents even prior to the year 1952. They cannot be considered to be trespassers so as to be evicted. A reference of statement of Jagirdar has been given to show that land in dispute was not given to the petitioners even for cultivation, rather, it was with the respondents. 7. It is also stated that "lagan" was deposited by the respondents though in the name of petitioners. The aforesaid establishes not only possession of the respondents but their rights in the land. When the respondents were in possession of the land prior to coming into effect the Act of 1952, they cannot be evicted. A reference of Sections 21, 22 apart from Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1952 has also been given. It is to show that after resumption of Jagir land, the petitioners were not entitled to claim right in the land in dispute. It is for the reason that no declaration was sought by them to claim rights in the land and there exits no order of Jagir Commissioner in their favour. The suit was thus rightly dismissed by the court below. This court may not cause interference therein. There is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the revenue courts. 8. Learned counsel further submit that a criminal case between the parties was also decided. Therein, possession of the respondents was found. The order aforesaid was taken into consideration by the revenue courts. It is in view of judgment of this court in the case of Prahlad & Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer & Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.560, 627 and 608 of 1973, decided on 12th April, 1983. A prayer is accordingly to dismiss the writ petition for challenge to the orders of the revenue courts. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The facts narrated in the preceding paras reveal that a suit for ejectment was filed by the petitioners under Section 183 of the Act of 1955. For ready reference, the provision aforesaid is quoted hereunder: "183. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The facts narrated in the preceding paras reveal that a suit for ejectment was filed by the petitioners under Section 183 of the Act of 1955. For ready reference, the provision aforesaid is quoted hereunder: "183. Ejectment of certain trespasser- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provision of this Act, a trespasser who has taken or retained possession of any land without lawful authority shall be liable to ejectment, subject to the provision contained in sub-section (2), on the suit of the person or persons entitled to eject him and shall be further liable to pay as penalty for each agricultural year during the whole or any part whereof he has been in such possession, a sum which may extend to fifteen times the annual rent. (2) In case of land which is held directly from the State Government or to which the State Government, acting through the Tehsildar, is entitled to admit the trespasser as tenant, the Tehsildar shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956)." 11. As per Section 183 of the Act of 1955, a suit for ejectment can be filed against a trespasser who has taken or retained possession in the land without lawful authority. In view of the above, it is to be seen as to whether respondents were in lawful possession of the land. At the same time, to see as to whether petitioners are entitled to seek ejectment by showing their rights thus both the parties were required to establish their rights either to retain or evict from the land in dispute. 12. The suit was preferred alleging that after giving land to the respondents for a period of six months, it was not vacated. The petitioners have been recorded as khatedar in the revenue record prior and subsequent to the year 1952 and 1955. They became khatedar as per Section 9 of the Act of 1952 and otherwise as per Section 15 of the Act of 1955. 13. The respondents preferred a suit to claim khatedari rights subsequent to the suit of ejectment by the petitioners. The suit therein was decreed by the SDO court vide his order dated 11th January, 1968. They became khatedar as per Section 9 of the Act of 1952 and otherwise as per Section 15 of the Act of 1955. 13. The respondents preferred a suit to claim khatedari rights subsequent to the suit of ejectment by the petitioners. The suit therein was decreed by the SDO court vide his order dated 11th January, 1968. The khatedari rights claimed by the respondents were granted and aforesaid was taken to be a basis to dismiss the suit preferred by the respondents. According to the revenue courts, subsequent order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority reversing the order of the SDO court dated 11th January, 1968 is not on record so as the order of SDO court dismissing the suit for non-prosecution. It was despite of availability of the orders on record. It shows not only perversity in the finding but illegality in the orders as material on record has been ignored. The respondents could not have been treated to be khatedar. 14. As against the aforesaid, the petitioners were shown to be khatedar in the revenue record. Thus revenue courts were under an obligation to recognize their right as per Section 9 of the Act of 1952 and Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The respondents did not prefer a suit to challenge the entries or for correction of entries in the revenue record where name of the petitioners was recorded as khatedar. In absence of it and as per revenue record, the petitioners remained khatedar of the land in dispute. The Board of Revenue in its order upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority on the ground that petitioners cannot be considered as khatedar in absence of a suit to claim khatedari. The Board of Revenue is expected to know the legal position before recording finding. A person recorded as khatedar need not to seek declaration for it in view of Sections 15 and 19 of the Act of 1955 and even under Section 9 of the Act of 1952. The respondents could not establish their right. 15. The issue, however, needs further discussion in reference to evidence led by the parties. It was to show that land in dispute was under cultivation of the respondents even prior to the Act of 1952. They were paying "lagan" though in the name of the petitioners. The respondents could not establish their right. 15. The issue, however, needs further discussion in reference to evidence led by the parties. It was to show that land in dispute was under cultivation of the respondents even prior to the Act of 1952. They were paying "lagan" though in the name of the petitioners. The fact aforesaid may be relevant to show possession and for it, even the order was passed in the criminal case. The fact, however, remains as to whether said possession was under lawful authority. The respondents failed to show and establish their khatedari or any other rights in the land. Their name did not appear in the revenue record as khatedar or sub-tenant or as a sub-tenant. 16. In the light of the aforesaid, respondents could not establish their lawful rights. The possession may be of relevance under the Act of 1955. The claim of khatedari can be made by submitting an application under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1955, if one is not shown as khatedar. The respondents did not submit application to claim khatedari right based on the possession. It is moreso when limitation has been provided under Section 19(2) to submit an application to the Assistant Collector. In absence of such a declaration, possession of the land is not converted into khatedari right. The aforesaid aspect has also been ignored by the revenue courts where more significance has been given to the evidence showing possession of the respondents. 17. As per Section 183 of the Act of 1955, a person need to show lawful authority to retain possession which has been ignored by the revenue courts. It seems that based on the decree in the suit preferred by the respondents on 11th January, 1968, the issue has been determined ignoring that order aforesaid was reversed by the Revenue Appellate Authority with remand of the case to the SDO court. The subsequent dismissal of the suit for non prosecution was not challenged by the respondents thus it has attained finality. The outcome of the aforesaid is nothing but dismissal of the suit where respondents claimed khatedari rights. 18. The perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue reveals ignorance of the aforesaid fact, rather, a perverse finding has been recorded on the ground that orders of Revenue Appellate Authority and SDO court are not on record despite availability of those orders. 18. The perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue reveals ignorance of the aforesaid fact, rather, a perverse finding has been recorded on the ground that orders of Revenue Appellate Authority and SDO court are not on record despite availability of those orders. It is moreso when those orders go in root of the case. 19. It is settled law that a person recorded as khatedar retains the right under the Act of 1952 and also under the Act of 1955 and need not to seek declaration of his khatedari right. The Board of Revenue has recorded finding contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1952 and 1955. It has already been clarified that a person in possession should show his lawful authority but the revenue courts have ignored the aforesaid also. 20. A reference of the order passed in the criminal case is also relevant only for the purpose of possession though it cannot have bearing in regard to the claim made before the revenue courts. In any case, it has already been held that it is not only the possession but lawful authority is required to be established. The revenue courts failed to appreciate it as per the provisions of Section 183 of the Act of 1955. 21. Learned counsel for respondents has made reference of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act of 1952 apart from Sections 9 and 10 of the said Act. A further reference of Sections 15 and 19 of the Act of 1955 has been given. It is to show that land of jagir was resumed. The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and otherwise Section 15 of the Act of 1955. The petitioners having been recorded as khatedar on the crucial date when the Act of 1952 and 1955 were given effect. In view of the above, arguments in reference to Sections 9, 10, 21 and 22 of the Act of 1955 are of no consequence. 22. Learned counsel for respondents further submit that after decree of the suit preferred by them, the order of the SDO court dated 11th January, 1968 was reversed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It was with remand of the case to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties. The suit was then dismissed for non-prosecution. 22. Learned counsel for respondents further submit that after decree of the suit preferred by them, the order of the SDO court dated 11th January, 1968 was reversed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. It was with remand of the case to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties. The suit was then dismissed for non-prosecution. It cannot be considered to be an order on merit. A reference of the judgment of this court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Jagdish Sharan Agrawal & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 689 has been given. 23. I have considered the aforesaid issue also. The argument has been raised without noticing that what is the consequence if suit preferred by the respondents was dismissed for non-prosecution. It may not be considered to be an order on merit but then in absence of any order in favour of the respondents to show khatedari rights, the respondents cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the land in dispute. 24. In the light of discussion made above, I find orders of the revenue courts to be perverse and otherwise contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, orders dated 7th December, 1977, 1st July, 1997 and 22nd November, 2001 passed by the Assistant Collector, Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue respectively are set aside while decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioners and other plaintiffs. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.