JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners herein claiming to be the successors of late Shri Hanif Khan have approached this Court by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 14.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Nagaur in Civil Original Case No.117/2017; order dated 11.01.2018 passed by District Collector, Nagaur under Section 11A of the Rajasthan Religious Building & Premises Act, 1954 and to restrain the Collector Nagaur and all concerned authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in question. 2. Brief facts as narrated in the memo of writ petition are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of reference. 3. Late Shri Haneef Khan filed a suit No.28/1966 under Section 88-89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the SDO Nagaur seeking declaration of rights and for correction in the revenue records stating that the subject piece of land which he was cultivating prior to enactment of the Rajastnan Tenancy Act, 1955 had been inadvertently entered as Khalsa land and thus, requisite correction be ordered. 4. Vide judgment dated 21.12.1968, the SDO declared Shri Haneef Khan to be the khatedar of the land and directed the Tehsildar to enter his name in the revenue records. However, the order passed by the SDO, Nagaur could not be executed and the subject parcel of land continued to remain in the officials revenue record as Khalsa land. 5. In the year 1993, notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, was served upon Shri Haneef Khan. Shri Haneef Khan filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Additional Collector, Nagur who rejected the same by order dated 30.12.1998. 6. Shri Haneef Khan challenged the order dated 30.12.1998 by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority who decided the appeal by order dated 08.03.2000 and remanded the matter to the Additional District Collector, Nagaur for fresh decision in light of the judgment-cum-decree dated 21.12.1968. 7. In the year 2002, the District Collector, Nagaur passed an order dated 14.05.2002 whereby 66 Bighas and 10 Biswa (53-10 Bighas land from Khasra No.379/790 & 13 Bighas land from Khasra No.379) was allotted to Government Mahila College, Nagaur (Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur). 8. Shri Haneef Khan challenged the above allotment order by filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act. 8. Shri Haneef Khan challenged the above allotment order by filing an appeal under Section 75 of the Land Revenue Act. The Revenue Appellate Authority decided the appeal by order dated 15.06.2004 and the revenue authorities were restrained from dispossessing Shri Haneef Khan from 10 bighas of the land situated in Khasra No.379. 9. The petitioners allege that in order to justify their illegal acts and to somehow or the other to support the wrongful allotment made to the Institution, the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1968 were challenged by the revenue authorities after nearly 47 years. The application for reference sponsored by the Tehsildar was accepted by the District Collector, Nagaur who passed an order dated 10.07.2015 and forwarded the matter to the Board of Revenue for deciding the reference on merits. 10. It appears that in the intervening period, a Mazaar/Dargarh cropped up on a part of the land in question. In light of the allotment made to the educational institution, the respondents intended to demolish the said Mazaar when a person named Ali Asgar in the capacity of representative of Muslim community filed a suit for temporary injunction praying that the Mazaar should not be demolished. 11. The petitioners have raised a grievance that they were intentionally not impleaded as parties in the suit and behind their backs, rather than passing a positive order and preventing demolition of the Mazaar/Dargarh, the Civil Court passed an order that the authorities were at liberty to demolish the mosque only after following due process of law. The petitioners claim to be ignorant of the suit proceedings. However, they claimed to have gained knowledge about the same through a public notice dated 25.10.2017 on perusal whereof, the petitioners were shocked to know that a totally illegal application under Section 11-A of the Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act, 1954 had been preferred by the SDO Nagaur before the Collector Nagaur with a prayer to seek removal of the Mazaar/Dargarh existing on the land privately owned by the petitioners. 12. By order dated 11.01.2018, the District Collector, Nagaur accepted the application and directed removal of Mazaar/Dargarh from the subject piece of land whereupon the petitioners herein have approached this Court through this writ petition for imploring this Court to exercise its extraordinary supervisory writ jurisdiction & quash the impugned orders and save the petitioners’ possession over the land in question. 13. 13. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was preferred by Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur for impleading it as party respondent in the writ petition which was accepted by order dated 16.04.2018 and the College was impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. 14. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the State Government. 15. Shri Himanshu Choudhary & Ms. Aishwarya Anand, Advocates representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urged that 10 bighas of land from Khasra No.379 was in cultivatory possession of the petitioners’ predecessors Shri Haneef Khan since more than 50 years and well before the Tenancy Act came in to force. The SDO, Naguar issued declaration to this effect way back in the year 1968 and the land was ordered to be entered in the name of Shri Haneef Khan in revenue record. However, by sheer ignorance, Shri Haneef Khan could not pursue the matter and get the mutation entry rectified. He urges that the attempted challenge to the mutation order passed by the SDO way back in the year 1968 by getting a reference instituted as late as in the year 2018 is clearly suggestive of the fact that the local authorities never intended to question Shri Haneef Khan’s title & possession on the disputed chunk of land. It was further contended that Dargah/Mazaar has been constructed on the land in question and religious sentiments of the entire muslim community of Nagaur are attached with it and if it is demolished, it would be nothing short of travesty of justice. They further urged that land in question has been wrongly and illegally allotted to the educational institution while infringing upon the petitioners’ lawful rights upon the land and thus, the Court should come to rescue of the petitioners so as to protect their proprietary rights on the 10 bighas of land which should be ordered to be entered into the name of Shri Haneef Khan and as a consequence to the petitioners by virtue of order dated 21.12.1968. They implored the Court to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and to quash the orders impugned. 16. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri O.P.Boob, GC representing the Government and Shri Rajat Arora, representing the Education Institution Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ Counsel. They implored the Court to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and to quash the orders impugned. 16. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri O.P.Boob, GC representing the Government and Shri Rajat Arora, representing the Education Institution Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ Counsel. They contended that the petitioners have taken illegal possession of the land allotted to the Institution. Even the Civil Court, while deciding the application for temporary injunction only directed that the Dargah shall not be demolished without following due process of law. Due process of law has been initiated by taking recourse of the Act of 1954 and rather than participating in the proceedings post notice, the petitioners have straight off approached this Court by filing this writ petition despite the fact that statutory remedy of approaching RAA/BOR is available to them. On these grounds, they implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition. 17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar by Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 18. First and foremost, this Court is of the view that the entire case of the petitioners is based on incomplete and vague assertions. On appreciating the petitioners’ own pleadings and documents, it is apparent that Khasra No.379 covers a huge area of almost 144 bighas. While filing the application before the SDO, Naguar in the year 1966, Shri Haneef Khan did not specify or identify the particular part of Khasra No.379 ad measuring 10 bighas on which he claimed to be holding cultivatory possession. He never made an effort to get the judgment dated 21.12.1968 executed. The disputed khasras were entered as Gair Mumkin Aagore land and the District Collector, Nagaur allotted the same to the Educational Institution at free of cost by order dated 14.05.2002. 19. Shri Haneef Khan challenged the order dated 14.05.2002 by filing an appeal before the RAA, Nagaur. While deciding the matter by judgment dated 08.03.2000, the RAA observed that the land claimed by Shri Haneef Khan was different from the land allotted to Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur and that both the chunks of land were adjoining each other. With these findings, the possession of Shri Haneef Khan on 10 bighas of land was protected. 20. While deciding the matter by judgment dated 08.03.2000, the RAA observed that the land claimed by Shri Haneef Khan was different from the land allotted to Madi Bai Girls College, Nagaur and that both the chunks of land were adjoining each other. With these findings, the possession of Shri Haneef Khan on 10 bighas of land was protected. 20. It may be stated here that the order dated 21.12.1968 and the order dated 08.03.2000 were both passed ex parte because the State was not represented in these proceedings. Even in the order dated 08.03.2000 passed by RAA, the Court directed Shri Haneef Khan to seek compliance/execution of the order dated 21.12.1968. The RAA, while deciding the appeal No.06/1998 by order dated 08.03.2000 remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh decision keeping in view order dated 21.12.1968. However the fate of these proceedings after remand has neither been disclosed nor placed on record by the petitioners. No assertion has been made in this writ petition as to the steps taken either by Shri Haneef Khan or his legal heirs i.e., the petitioners herein to get the requisite rectification effected in the revenue records in furtherance of these orders. 21. In the entire pleadings of the cases filed as well as the contents of orders passed till date, neither Shri Haneef Khan nor his legal representatives have made any effort to identify or pinpoint the particular part of the Khasra No.379 (ad measuring 144 bighas) which was in possession of Shri Haneef Khan. Manifestly, the person claiming title on a part of a huge chunk of land on the basis of long standing possession would have to undertake requisite proceedings under the Land Revenue Act for demarcation/identification of the parcel of land allegedly in his/her possession. No such action has been taken till date. Manifestly, since the ex parte order dated 21.12.1968 was never complied with or executed, the respondents are acting well within their rights to challenge the same. Even the RAA, while passing the order dated 19.06.2004 in the appeal preferred by Shri Haneef Khan against the order of allotment dated 08.03.2000 issued in favour of the Govt. College has issued a vague kind of direction that no interference should be made in the possession of Shri Haneef Khan on 10 bighas of land in Khasra No.379. Even the RAA, while passing the order dated 19.06.2004 in the appeal preferred by Shri Haneef Khan against the order of allotment dated 08.03.2000 issued in favour of the Govt. College has issued a vague kind of direction that no interference should be made in the possession of Shri Haneef Khan on 10 bighas of land in Khasra No.379. Even in this order, there is no indication as to the exact location of the parcel of land allegedly, in possession of Shri Hanif Khan. A perusal of order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the Addl. District Collector, Nagaur reveals that entire Khasra No.379 ad measuring 144.03 bighas was entered as Gair Mumkin aagor comprising of the historical water body named Talab Samas and catchment area of Gacholai. Such lands cannot be allotted to any private individual. Even for allotting the land to a public institution, the authoriteis would have to set apart an equal chunk of govt. land so as to compensate the loss. 22. The validity of the order dated 21.12.1968 is yet to be decided by the BOR in the reference which will have to be decided on merits and thus, this Court refrains from making any comment thereupon. 23. In any event, this Court is of the firm view that there is no indication whatsoever either in the pleadings incorporated in the various applications/appeals filed by Shri Haneef Khan or in the orders passed by the revenue Courts till date any Mazaar/Dargah has been constructed on 10 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of Shri Haneef Khan or his successors. Manifestly, the Court cannot come to rescue of those who are trying to unscrupulous by taking possession of land allotted to an educational institution in the garb of a Dargah or a temple. 24. The Khasra Girdawari placed on record by the petitioners with this writ petition as Annexure-11 clearly shows that Shri Haneef Khan had cultivated 15.1 land of Khasra No.379. 25. A bare reading of this document is enough to satisfy the Court that Haneef Khan and his relatives are or the petitioners are trying to encroach upon almost one and a half times the of the land claimed to be in their cultivatory possession. This attempt of the petitioners in usurping the government land in the garb of the ex-parte order in the year 1968 which remains unexecuted cannot be approved. This attempt of the petitioners in usurping the government land in the garb of the ex-parte order in the year 1968 which remains unexecuted cannot be approved. The petitioners, if they so desire can always file appropriate proceedings for demarcation/identification of the land claimed by them and proper adjudication of their rights could have been made in such proceedings. However, the case at hand involves significant and complex disputed issues of facts and thus this Court, while exercising its extraordinary or supervisory writ jurisdiction would be loath to entertain such a dispute. 26. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the stay application are rejected as being devoid of merit. There is no order as to costs.