JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been filed by the appellants-defendants No. 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1985, whereby the learned District Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff - Deva Ram Chela Raja Ram. 2. The suit aforesaid came to be filed by the Respondent-plaintiff; inter alia, averring that he had purchased 10 bigha land of khasra No. 235 (old) of village Balotra, vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.1968 and was enjoying peaceful possession thereof; a road connecting Balotra and Samdari divided the said land of khasra No. 235 into two parts, on southern part, the plaintiff had constructed Rajaram Boarding House. It was also stated, that in the new settlement of Samvat 2032, the southern part of the land was shown to have been falling in khasra No. 558, while the northern part of the land, which is situated between the said Samdari-Balotra road and Samdari-Balotra railway line, became part of khasra No. 609. It has also been stated that the plaintiff had been enjoying peaceful possession over his land spread in khasra No. 558 and 609 until 17.07.1979, when as a result of the flood in Luni river, the entire area was submerged in 8 to 9 feet water and various persons, including defendants No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 16, took shelter on the plaintiff's open land in northern side of the road falling in khasra No. 609, as the same was at a higher gradient. According to the plaintiff, he had asked the defendants to leave the site when the water receded; but they refused to hand over the possession and rather constructed huts and baras etc. 3. Alleging that the defendants have illegally encroached upon 3900 sq. ft. land belonging to him, the plaintiff filed the suit in question for securing possession of the disputed land, while seeking to recover mesne profits from 17.07.1979 till the possession is recovered. 4. In response to the suit so fled, the defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 filed a joint written statement, inter alia, refuting the contents of the plaint, including plaintiff's title over the contentious land. 5. 4. In response to the suit so fled, the defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 filed a joint written statement, inter alia, refuting the contents of the plaint, including plaintiff's title over the contentious land. 5. While denying the title of the plaintiff, the defendants stated in their written statement that the District Collector, Barmer had provided them the shelter on the subject land, during the flood, for which, they are having licence(s) over the said land. The defendants also stated that the plaintiff's land is situated in southern side of the road and not on the northern side, on which part, they were having possession. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following seven issues thus:- 1- D;k Hkwfe [kljk ua0 235 okds ljgn ckyksrjk dh 10 ch?kk Hkwfe ftldk o.kZu vthZnkok esa fd;k x;k gS ;g Hkwfe oknh dh [kjhn lqnk] feYdh;rh o dCtk lqn gSa\ 2- D;k okn i= ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V ^c* esa ntZ oknh dh Hkwfe ij izfroknhx.k us vfrdze.k djds edku cukdj uktk;t dCts fd;s gS vkSj oknh izfroknhx.k ls fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls :i;s 3280-00 vkUrfjd ykHk dh jkf'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gS rks fdl dnj\ 4- D;k fooknxzLr dk'r dh Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k ;g nkok bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj dk gS\ 5- ;fn fooknxzLr Hkwfe dks vkcknh Hkwfe ekudj nkok bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ekuk tkosa rks D;k nkok ij dksVZ Qhl de yxk;h gS\ 6- D;k oknh dk nkok vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS vkSj bl dkj.k izfroknhx.k fo'ks"k gtkZuk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gS rks fdruk\ 7- vuqrks"k D;k gksxk\ 7. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW-1 Madroop Ram, PW-2 Gumna Ram, PW-3 Uka Ram (the predecessor-in-title), PW-4 Lekh Raj, PW-5 Ummeda Ram, PW-6 Amara Ram Choudhary and PW-7 Jugal Kishore, Advocate (Commissioner) appeared in the witness box and produced General Power of Attorney (Ex. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW-1 Madroop Ram, PW-2 Gumna Ram, PW-3 Uka Ram (the predecessor-in-title), PW-4 Lekh Raj, PW-5 Ummeda Ram, PW-6 Amara Ram Choudhary and PW-7 Jugal Kishore, Advocate (Commissioner) appeared in the witness box and produced General Power of Attorney (Ex. 1), Sale Deed (Ex.2), Mutation Entry (Ex.3), Jamabandi of Samvat 2022 to 2025 (Ex.4), Jamabandi of Samvat 2026 to 2029 (Ex.5), Khasra Settlements (Ex.6 & Ex.7), Revenue Map (Ex.8), List showing possession of the Defendants (Ex.9), Map prepared by the commissioner (Ex.10) and Commissioner's Report (Ex.11); whereas, Teja Ram, Defendant No. 10, appeared in the witness box and exhibited Document-A/1, being Map, and Jamabandi Ex. A/2. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit, while holding that the land occupied by the defendants falls in khasra No. 609 (as per New Settlement), owned by the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court, after dealing with the evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff's land falling in old khasra No. 235, as a result of the new settlement of Samvat 2032, has been furcated in khasras No. 558, 559 and 609. While considering the evidence given by the Patwari PW-1 Madroop Ram, the learned Court below has held that the contentious land falling in khasra No. 609 is a part of old khasra No. 235 and further that the land possessed by the defendants belong to the plaintiff and not to the Government. While passing the judgment and decree, the Trial court directed the defendants to hand over the possession of the disputed land to the plaintiff, within a period of two months, while asking them to pay a sum of Rs. 3290/- as mesne profits for the illegal possession for period commencing from 17.07.1979 till the date of the decree. 9. Out of the defendants, who were fifteen in number, only 5 have chosen to prefer the present appeal, out of whom, two appellants, appellants No. 3 and 4 have withdrawn their appeal and two of them have handed over the possession, as a result, Teja Ram, appellant No. 2 alone has pursued the present appeal, having possession over 75 x 45 ft. area = 3370 sq. ft. area. 10. area = 3370 sq. ft. area. 10. The present first appeal was admitted on 16.05.1985, on which date, the execution of the decree relating to handing over of the possession was stayed, subject to payment of 'mesne profits', awarded by the Trial Court. 11. Narrating the facts of the case in brief, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ramit Mehta, submitted that the learned Court below has committed an error of law in decreeing the suit while recording a finding that the plaintiff's land which was falling in old khasra No. 235 (old settlement of Samvat 2012) forms part of khasra No. 609, after the new settlement of Samvat 2032. He urged that a perusal of the documents placed by the plaintiff himself reveals that the old khasra No. 235 has been renumbered as khasra No. 559; whereas the appellants (defendants) are having possession over the land situated in khasra No. 609, which is aabadi land, held by the State Government/Municipality, Balotra. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove that the contentious land was/is owned by him, while submitting that the land of the plaintiff is on the southern side of the Balotra-Samdari road, whereas the appellant is having possession on its northern side. 12. Mr. Mehta fairly conceding that the appellant does not have any title over the land, submitted that his possession is over the Government land, which possession was with the permission of the Collector, Bamrer, who had settled the appellant and other defendants, at the advent of the flood in July, 1979. The entire thrust of the arguments of learned counsel has been that the said land has never been in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and the same, being aabadi land, belong to the State Government. 13. Learned counsel invited attention of this Court towards an interim order passed by this Court on 14.12.2015 and contended that after hearing the parties at length, this Court, prima facie, found that the land in question belong to the State Government and in wake of long possession over the said land, the appellants are entitled for regularisation of their possession. Founding his case upon the said interim order, he informed that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. Founding his case upon the said interim order, he informed that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/-, vide Demand Draft dated 22.08.2016 which has been accepted by the District Collector, Barmer, in terms of the interim order dated 14.12.2015. In backdrop of these facts, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for an order of grant of patta/conveyance in relation to his possession of disputed land, situated opposite Rajaram Hostel. 14. As the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant essentially revolve around the said interim order dated 14.12.2015, it would not be out of place to reproduce the entire order dated 14.12.2015 here in extenso:- "S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 49/1985. Mahendra & Ors. vs. Deva Ram Date of Order : Monday, 14th December, 2015. Present Hon'ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari Appearance: Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Patel, for the respondent. 1. The present first appeal gives rise to a peculiar situation whereby, the defendants-appellants, who claimed to have been put in possession by the then, Collector, District Barmer on account of their own land being deluged with the floods and rains in the year 1978-79 in the District of Barmer. 2. In the present suit (No. 14/1981 "Deva Ram Chela Rajaram Maharaj, resident of Shikarpura, Jodhpur through Power of Attorney Holder - Madroop Ram S/o Viram Ram v. Bhuriya S/o Dharma & Ors.), the plaintiff-Deva Ram claimed the said land belong to him and re-claimed his possession. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff on 20.04.1985. 3. In the present suit, 16 defendants were arrayed as the persons in such unauthorised possession over the land of 33800 square feet, whereas the present appeal was originally filed only by five defendants, namely, the Defendant No. 8-Mahendra S/o Ram Niwas, Defendant No. 10-Teja Ram S/o Shivnath Ram, Defendant No. 11-Ravia S/o Vega, Defendant No. 12-Mada S/o Vaga and Defendant No. 15-Kachba S/o Lakha. 4. The present first appeal by the defendants-appellants Nos. 3- Ravia and No. 4-Mada was withdrawn by them vide order dated 25.02.1987 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, presently only three appellants are contesting the present first appeal namely, Appellants No. 1-Mahendra, No. 2-Teja Ram, No. 5- Kachba. 5. 4. The present first appeal by the defendants-appellants Nos. 3- Ravia and No. 4-Mada was withdrawn by them vide order dated 25.02.1987 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, presently only three appellants are contesting the present first appeal namely, Appellants No. 1-Mahendra, No. 2-Teja Ram, No. 5- Kachba. 5. Admittedly, the appellants-defendants do not hold any title or patta of the said land in their favour even though they claimed to have been put into possession by the then Collector, District Barmer, but The State of Rajasthan through Collector, District Barmer was not arrayed as a defendant in the suit and, therefore, the stand of the State of Rajasthan, as to whether the land in question belonged to the plaintiff or the State, is not clear. 6. The Appellants have also offered to deposit the market price of the land for regularisation of their title or possession over the said land. 7. However, to settle the equities and the respective dispute of title of the plaintiff and the defendants through the District Collector, Barmer, it is considered necessary to implead the State of Rajasthan through the Collector, District Barmer as a party respondent in the present first appeal, so that the relevant evidence with regard to the title of the said land as per Revenue Record, can clearly came before this Court through application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff-decree-holders to contest, who are respondents in the present first appeal. 8. To verify the bona fides of the aforesaid offer of the appellants-defendants and to implead the State of Rajasthan through the Collector, District Barmer, as a party-respondent in the present first appeal, all the defendants, as per the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 24.04.1985, 16 in number enumerated below, either themselves or through their respective legal representatives or successor-in-title, if any, are directed to deposit the amount @ Rs. 50/- per square feet of the actual possession of the land holding by them as of now within a period of two months from today. The sixteen names of the defendants in the suit are as under:- 1. Bhuria S/o Dharma 2. Ghevaria S/o Dharma 3. Padma S/o Dharma 4. Achala S/o Dharma 5. Bhoora S/o Pratap 6. Ishariya S/o Pratap 7. Thakaria S/o Pratap 8. The sixteen names of the defendants in the suit are as under:- 1. Bhuria S/o Dharma 2. Ghevaria S/o Dharma 3. Padma S/o Dharma 4. Achala S/o Dharma 5. Bhoora S/o Pratap 6. Ishariya S/o Pratap 7. Thakaria S/o Pratap 8. Mahendra S/o Ramniwas 9. Magaram S/o Doongarram 10. Tejaram Vaiccinator S/o Shivnathram 11. Ravia S/o Vaga 12. Mada S/o Vaga 13. Vijay Singh S/o Simrath Singh 14. Bhanwar Singh S/o Simrath Singh 15. Kachhaba S/o Lakha 16. Babuda S/o Kachhaba 9. The District Collector, Barmer shall verify the actual possession of the said land which as per the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 20.04.1985, is 33800 square feet of land amongst the 12 persons named in para-8 of the judgment represented by 16 defendants, as arrayed in the Civil Original Suit No. 14/1981 "Deva Ram v. Bhuria & Ors.". 10. The District Collector, Barmer may also furnish a report to this Court about the actual possession by each of the defendants or any other person, and deposit of the said money by the defendants arrayed in the original suit, who are in possession of the said land in question. 11. The appellants-defendants in the original suit shall produce the proof of the aforesaid deposit of the amount with the Collector, District Barmer in this Court before the end of the month of February, 2016. They will also file an amended cause title bringing on record the legal representatives of all the appellants-defendants, if any and the State of Rajasthan represented by the Collector, District Barmer, as the party-respondent in the present first appeal along with the private plaintiff-respondent. 12. The Collector, District Barmer is also directed to produce the original revenue as updated till now record of the land holdings of the aforesaid khasras in question namely, khasra No. 558 and khasra No. 559 of Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer and also the report of the Collector, District Barmer about the actual possession/construction, if any, raised by the defendants on the said land on the total 33800 square feet with site photographs of defendants' and plaintiff's land holdings and a hostel said to have been constructed by them with a site map, as mentioned in the Trial Court's judgment dated 20.04.1985. 13. 13. The appellants shall furnish an extra copy of the memo of the present first appeal along with its annexures along with copy of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in the Registry within 3 days and which may be sent to the Collector, District Barmer along with a copy of this order passed today for needful compliance before the next date of hearing of the present first appeal. 14. Before the next date of hearing, the learned Collector, District Barmer is expected to file his reply, take a stand in the matter and copies of all the relevant evidence available with him in respect of the 33800 square feet of land in question. 15. In view of the aforesaid and in the interest of justice, the final hearing of the present old first appeal, which is pending since the year 1985 in this Court and 30 years have gone-by, is kept pending for next two months in view of the aforesaid circumstances. 16. The matter may now again be listed before this Court on 03.03.2016." 15. In a bid to impeach the correctness of the judgment and decree under challenge, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Trial Court has placed undue and unwarranted reliance upon the Map (Ex.8), a self-served document prepared by the plaintiff, and contended that Ex.8, such Map, cannot be treated as a gospel truth, as the same was neither prepared by any Revenue Authority nor by Competent Engineer. He submitted that the plaintiff has not only failed to prove his title over the contentious land, but has also failed to prove the identity of land particularly the fact that the disputed land, which earlier fell in khasra No. 235(old), as a consequence of new settlement, became part of khasra No. 609 and that the same is a part of the land purchased and possessed by the plaintiff. 16. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, vehemently argued that there was not even a whisper in the written statement, indicating that the contentious land was a Government land. He further contended that the entire defence taken in the written statement has been that the contentious land is not owned by the plaintiff. 16. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Thanvi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff, vehemently argued that there was not even a whisper in the written statement, indicating that the contentious land was a Government land. He further contended that the entire defence taken in the written statement has been that the contentious land is not owned by the plaintiff. While pointing towards para 1, 4 and other part of the written statement, he submitted that the defendants have maintained that they were having possession over the land, pursuant to an oral permission/order given by the Collector, without producing any documentary evidence or order of the Collector. 17. Reading the issues framed by the Trial Court, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that no issue had been framed by the Trial Court about the Government's ownership over the subject land, as it was nobody's case that the disputed land belonged to the State Government. Showing due deference to the aforesaid interlocutory order dated 14.12.2015, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff Mr. Narendra Thanvi submitted that though it is settled that an interlocutory order is always subject to the final adjudication of the matter, yet vide observation made in para 7 of the order dated 14.12.2015, this Court had kept right of the plaintiff-decree-holder reserved to contend otherwise. Mr. Thanvi admitted that the said interlocutory order dated 14.12.2015 has not been assailed, in wake of such observation, contended that the fact that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- on 22.08.2016, in light of the interlocutory order, does not confer upon the appellant a carte blanche to assert right of regularisation. The interlocutory order dated 14.12.2015 was always subject to the final decision of the present appeal, he submitted; and contended that till today, neither any positive order of regularisation has been passed in appellant's favour, nor the same can ever be passed, as the disputed land does not belong to the Government. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that while passing the aforesaid interlocutory order dated 14.12.2015, this Court had formed a prima facie opinion that the ownership of the contentious land was not clear, for which, a notice had been issued to the State/the District Collector, Barmer, to know its stand, "as to whether, the land in question belonged to the plaintiff or the State?" 19. Learned counsel for the Respondent added that in furtherance of the direction aforesaid, the State Government has filed its detailed reply wherewith a site inspection report has been enclosed depicting possession of the appellant No. 2 - Teja Ram on the land ad-measuring 55' (on the main road), 39'.10" (north side), 42'.03" (west side) and 31'.40" (east side). While reading the reply of the State, site inspection report and the photographs enclosed therewith, learned counsel argued that even the State has not claimed the said land to be belonging to it. 20. During the course of hearing on 14.12.2017, this Court found that the State's response/reply is not in conformity with the interim direction issued by this Court on 14.12.2015, as the State has not come out with a clear stand or answer expected of it, vide the said order; namely, "in which khasra number, the disputed land is situated and whether the contentious land is owned by the plaintiff/respondent or the State Government ?" 21. This Court, therefore, required Mr. O.P. Boob, learned Government Counsel appearing for the State to place relevant documents, including revenue map, as per the old settlement of Samvat 2012 so also as per the new settlement of Samvat 2032 and to apprise the Court categorically, as to whether, the contentious land belong to the State or not ? 22. The State Government has filed an additional affidavit (sworn on 18.12.2017) on 19.12.2017, along with maps, as per old and new settlements and Nazari Map showing disputed land, and a superimposed map, placing the revenue map as per the new settlement of Samvat Year 2032 with new khasra number over the revenue map of Samvat 2012 with the old khasra number. 23. Upon perusal of the said additional affidavit; the maps enclosed therewith; and after considering the stand taken by Mr. O.P. Boob, learned Government Counsel, it is crystal clear that the old khasra No. 235 has been splitted into numerous khasras, such as khasra No. 558, 559, 609, 469 and 468, after the new settlement of Samvat 2032. The appellant is having possession over the land falling in khasra No. 609, for which, the plaintiff/respondent is having a clear title, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 27.07.1968. 24. The appellant is having possession over the land falling in khasra No. 609, for which, the plaintiff/respondent is having a clear title, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 27.07.1968. 24. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the additional affidavit dated 18.12.2017 (filed on 19.12.2017) by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Balotra, which reads thus:- "2. That the respondent is hereby submitting that the land in question is located in Village Balotra. The resettlement at Village Balotra was conducted in Samvat 2024 and thereafter no other settlement was conducted and the map of said resettlement is currently in effect. The said resettlement has been conducted with 165 ft. Jarib, and the map was prepared accordingly. It is also submitted that earlier settlement was conducted in Samvat 2012 in which the survey was conducted as per 132 ft. Jarib and map was prepared accordingly. The copy of maps of old and new settlement Nazari Map showing disputed land are attached herewith and marked as Annexure R/A/1 collectively. 3. That in earlier settlement, Khasra No. 234 was recorded as 21-19 Bigha in the name of Ukaram as private khatedari land in Jamabandi whereas as the map measured the area of 36-14 Bigha, which shows there is a discrepancy in the measurement in the Jamabandi and the map in the earlier settlement. It is submitted that since in both the settlements, Jarib's of different length was used for measurement, thus for comparing both of them the measurement in sq. ft. should be considered, according to which as per latest resettlement the measurement of new Khasra would be 14-01 Bigha whereas it is 36- 14 Bigha as per Map Measurement. It is submitted that 36-14 Bigha of settlement 2012 is equivalent to 23-10 Bigha in the resettlement 2024 because of variation in the length of Jarib used for measurement. It is submitted that by superimposing both the maps with reference to the railway line, it was found that 36-14 Bigha (639460.8 sq. ft.) area of Khasra No. 235 transformed partially into Khasra No. 558, 559, 468, 469, 457 and 609 measuring 4-06, 11-12, 2-09, 2-04, 1-05 and -14 Bigha respectively total 23-10 Bigha (639785.5 sq. ft.) in the resettlement. The superimposed map of both the settlement is attached herewith and marked as Annexure R/A/2. 4. ft.) area of Khasra No. 235 transformed partially into Khasra No. 558, 559, 468, 469, 457 and 609 measuring 4-06, 11-12, 2-09, 2-04, 1-05 and -14 Bigha respectively total 23-10 Bigha (639785.5 sq. ft.) in the resettlement. The superimposed map of both the settlement is attached herewith and marked as Annexure R/A/2. 4. That the respondent Devaram purchased 10 Bigha land of Khasra No. 235 on 02.08.1968 through registered sale deed from Ukaram which was his Khatedari Land. The land purchased by the respondent in Khasra No. 235 is shown to be located southwards the railway line as mentioned in the registered sale deed. The Khasra No. 235 in the northern side starts from Railway Line. Samdadi road was not marked in the record of settlement of 2012. It is also submitted that the land possessed by respondent devaram was located in Khasra No. 235 and 232/3 measuring 5.04 and 1.03 Bigha respectively (measured with 165 ft. long Jarib). As per resettlement 2024 the possession of respondent devaram lies in two parts divided by samdadi road. One part on Khasra No. 609 and 468 measuring 0-17 Bigha and 0-08 Bigha respectively located on the northern side of Samdadi road i.e. line between railway line and samdadi road, and the other part on Khasra No. 558 and 559 measuring 4-00 and 1-02 Bigha respectively on the southern side of samdadi road. The total land possessed in all the Khasras mentioned above is 6-07 Bigha (equivalent to 10 Bigha). 5. That since the entries of Khasra Bandobast in resettlement do not exactly match the inference could only be reached by superimposing the old and new khasra map. According to superimposition, land in question which is under the possession of Tejaram is a part of Khasra No. 235 (settlement 2012) which was a Khatedari land. In the resettlement the said land lies n Khasra No. 609 measuring 314-13 Bigha recorded as gair mumkin abadi in the name of Nagarpalika Balotra. It is relevant to mention that the said land was recorded as abadi due to sprawling abadi in the area. It is further submitted that, Tejaram is in possession of 12 Biswansi land in present Khasra No. 609 as well as he is in possession of land measuring 9 Biswansi in Khasra No. 469 (gair mumkin sadak), known as samdadi road. 6. It is further submitted that, Tejaram is in possession of 12 Biswansi land in present Khasra No. 609 as well as he is in possession of land measuring 9 Biswansi in Khasra No. 469 (gair mumkin sadak), known as samdadi road. 6. That it is further submitted that samdadi road passes through the land possessed by respondent devaram dividing it into two parts. It is also submitted that samdadi road lies in the south of the land possessed by Tejaram along with some part of road encroached by him which is mentioned in aforesaid para no. 5. 7. That the land in question lies in Khasra No. 609 which is now recorded as gair mumkin abadi and entered in the name of Municipal Corporation Balotra." 25. Mr. O.P. Boob, learned Government Counsel appearing for State Government, while clarifying the factual position along with the map filed therewith, extensively explained the fact-situation and submitted that the measurement had been made by Jarib (chain) of 132 feet in Samvat 2012; whereas the measurement was done with Jarib (chain) of 165 feet during the settlement of Samvat 2032 and such difference in measurement remained unnoticed, for which a clear a categoric stand of the State could not come on record. Mr. Boob stated that the present SDO has undertaken an extensive exercise and has found that 10 bigha 8 biswansi land purchased by the plaintiff/respondent from Uka Ram, which was earlier situated in khasra No. 235 (Settlement of Samvat 2012) is now spread in various khasras, including khasra No. 559, 558, 469, 609 and 468 and the disputed land under the possession of Teja Ram, the appellant No. 2, being part of khasra No. 235 (old settlement of Samvat 2012) now falls in khasra No. 609 (as per new settlement of Samvat 2032), which is a huge khasra, admeasuring 314 bigha 13 biswansi. Mr. Boob clarified that the entire khasra No. 609 has been recorded as 'gair mumkin' aabadi in view of the upcoming residential tenaments abutting such land and stated that Teja Ram, appellant is having possession over 12 biswansi land, in khasra No. 609, whereas his possession of 89 biswans is situated in khasra No. 469 (gair mumkin sadak). Lerned counsel for the State categorically pointed out and asserted that the disputed possession of the appellant is in khasra No. 609, owned by the plaintiff/respondent and partly on the Balotra-Samdari road. Lerned counsel for the State categorically pointed out and asserted that the disputed possession of the appellant is in khasra No. 609, owned by the plaintiff/respondent and partly on the Balotra-Samdari road. 26. Having carefully examined the affidavit dated 19.12.2017, the revenue map, old settlement of Samvat 2012 and new settlement of Samvat 2032 prepared and placed in original by the SDO, Balotra and the superimposed map showing old khasras (marked in red colour, as per old settlement of Samvat 2012) and new khasra(s), as per the new settlement of Samvat 2032 in green colour coupled with the revenue map and the additional affidavit filed by the State Government, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the disputed possession of the appellant - Teja Ram is on the land owned by the plaintiff - Deva Ram and the said land does not belong to the State Government, except the encroachment in khasra No. 469 gair mumkin' sadak or Road. Hence, the interlocutory order dated 14.12.2015 cannot be made absolute and the appellant cannot be given right of regularisation, as the disputed land does not belong to the State Government. 27. Coming to the plea of regularisation taken on behalf of the appellant, suffice it to observe that neither in the written statement, nor in the defence, the defendants have ever claimed that the land in question belong to the State Government. The entire defence or case of the defendants had been that they have been settled on the contentious land by the District Collector, Barmer, during the flood. It may be true that the appellants - defendants had disputed the plaintiff's title over the said land, however, the documentary and oral evidence produced by the plaintiff and the affidavit dated 19.12.2017 and the stand of the State Government go a long way to prove plaintiff's case. 28. The plaintiff had unequivocally proved that the land in question had been purchased by him from Uka Ram and Balotra-Samdari road splitted the said land falling in khasra No. 235 in two parts, on southern part whereof, he had constructed Rajaram Ashram whereas on the northern side of the road, on the remaining part of the land in khasra No. 235, the defendants had made encroachment. The plaintiff has, by way of leading evidence of Amara Ram Choudhary, Gumna Ram and others have proved beyond the pale of doubt that the land in question, being part of khasra No. 235, is now a part of khasra No. 609, as per the new settlement of Samvat 2032 and that the defendants have encroached upon the land owned by the plaintiff. 29. Having examined the material available on record, including the documentary and oral evidence, and after considering the arguments advanced by the rival counsels, and the factual position brought to fore by the State Government, particularly the additional affidavit filed on 19.12.2017 (dated 18.12.2017), this Court has reached to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant - Teja Ram is having possession over the plaintiff's (Deva Ram) land and the same is without authority of law, for which, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law, in passing the judgment and decree of eviction and mesne profits. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1985 is affirmed. 30. The appellant Teja Ram shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 500/- per month (Rupees Five Hundred only) w.e.f. 20.04.1985 till handing over the possession to the respondent/plaintiff - Deva Ram. The possession of 3370 sq. feet land be handed over to the plaintiff/respondent - Dava Ram on or before 31.03.2018, failing which, the plaintiff (his LR's) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.