JUDGMENT : Mr. G.K. Vyas, J. - The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 21st November, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 11288/2015 (LR's of Keshulal v. Board of Revenue & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated 03.07.2014. 2. As per brief facts of the case the Up-Tehsildar, Kanoda, District Udaipur upon receipt of report of Patwari for encroachment of the land of way registered proceedings against Sh. Keshulal, father of appellants, under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1956") and issued show cause notice to the appellants? father to appear before him on 28.04.2010. The father of the appellants appeared before the Up-Teshldar and filed his reply to the show cause notice and after considering the reply filed by the father of the appellants, the Up-Tehsildar passed order on 28.04.2010 to remove the encroachment made by the appellants' father on the way in Khasra No. 999. 3. Against the said order passed by the Up-Teshldar, an appeal was preferred by the appellants? father before the District Collector, Udaipur, but the same was dismissed by learned District Collector vide order dated 11.10.2010 and upheld the order of Up-Tehsildar, Kanoda to remove the encroachment on the way. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2010 the father of the appellants preferred second appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, and in that appeal after hearing both the parties, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the second appeal and quashed the order of Up-Tehsildar, Kanod dated 28.04.2010 as well as the order of District Collector, Udaipur dated 11.10.2010 and gave direction to hand over the destructed trees to appellants' father along with other reliefs vide order dated 03.05.2011. 5. The State of Rajasthan preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order of R.A.A., Udaipur, that revision petition was allowed by the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 03.07.2014, whereby the order of R.A.A., Udaipur dated 03.05.2011 was set aside and the order passed by Up-Tehsildar and District Collector were restored. 6. 5. The State of Rajasthan preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order of R.A.A., Udaipur, that revision petition was allowed by the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 03.07.2014, whereby the order of R.A.A., Udaipur dated 03.05.2011 was set aside and the order passed by Up-Tehsildar and District Collector were restored. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order of Board of Revenue, Ajmer the appellants had preferred a writ petition before this Court because during pendency of the litigation their father died. In the writ petition, many grounds were raised including the ground that in the proceedings registered/initiated under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, order for removal of illegal encroachment could not have been passed without specifying such land and to apprise dates and as to why he should not be evicted from the disputed land. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellants, there was no encroachment, more so, upon the land in question, late Sh. Keshulal was having "Khatedari" rights, where number of trees were in existence and those trees were cut down illegally. It is also submitted that from the Settlement Department, report dated 29.06.2010 was obtained and second appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority, and after due consideration of record, second appeal filed by the appellants? father was allowed by the R.A.A., Udaipur, but neither the Board of Revenue nor the learned Single Judge considered the fact that as per report of the Inspector & Amin of Settlement Office dated 29.06.2010, no road was in existence upon the land of the appellants in Khasra No. 998/ ^^[k** , whereas the learned R.A.A., Udaipur considered the said report dated 29.06.2010 and allowed the appeal, therefore, both the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 03.07.2014 and impugned judgment of learned Single Judge deserve to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that no encroachment was made by the appellants or their father but the Up-Tehsildar on the basis of false report of the Patwari registered a case under Section 91-A of the Act and illegally passed illegal order, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be allowed and all the orders except the order of R.A.A. Udaipur, may kindly be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned Govt. 9. On the other hand, learned Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that no person can be allowed to make encroachment upon the way, therefore, as per report of the Patwari, the proceeding under Section 91A of the Act was initiated against appellants? father, late Sh. Keshulal; and after due enquiry, it was found that encroachment has been made by him upon the way by constructing wall in Khasra No. 999. Therefore, the order was passed by the Up-Tehsildar, Kanoda, to remove the encroachment on 28.04.2010 which was upheld by the District Collector, Udaipur but the same was reversed by the R.A.A., Udapur but upon revision filed by the State, the Board of Revenue as well as learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Up-Tehsildar, Kanod, whereby encroachment made by the appellants? father was ordered to be removed. It is thus prayed that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the order passed by the Up-Tehsildar, Kanoda as well as District Collector, Udaipur, Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, the appellants are taking shelter of order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, which is based upon report of Inspector of Settlement Office dated 29.06.2010. Admittedly, the said report was not in existence before the Up-Tehsildar, Kanoda in the proceedings initiated and decided on 28.04.2010 under Section 91A of the Act, so also, there was no jurisdiction to Inspector of the Settlement Department to go on the spot so as to issue such report because as per provisions of Land Revenue Act, the concerned Patwari and the Tehsildar are having jurisdiction in the concerned area to protect the land from encroachment. 11. We are thus of the opinion that there is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Board of Revenue as well as learned Single Judge ignored the "Moka" report dated 29.06.2010 obtained by the appellants from the Inspector & Amin of Settlement Office. There is no documentary evidence to prove that any right remain for raising construction of wall upon the land in question, more so, it is a case in which order has been passed to remove the encroachment. 12. There is no documentary evidence to prove that any right remain for raising construction of wall upon the land in question, more so, it is a case in which order has been passed to remove the encroachment. 12. Accordingly, and in view of above, no interference is called for in this special appeal, hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.