JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition and confirmed the order passed by all the authorities SDO, RAA and Board of Revenue. 2. Counsel for the appellants contended that this Court issued notice on 5th December, 2007 and while allowing the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC passed the following order:- "By the application (25861 dated 27.8.2007), the appellants pray for taking on record the following documents: (i) The copy of the application dated 23rd August, 2007 made by the appellants before the Public Information Officer, Jaipur; (ii) Receipt dated 23rd August, 2007 issued by the Settlement Department; (iii) The letter dated 25th August, 2007 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Settlement Jaipur-cum-Public Information Officer, Jaipur; and (iv) The copy of the Circular dated 6.12.1989. 2. The Additional Government Advocate has no objection if the aforesaid documents are taken on record for consideration in the appeal. 3. The application is, accordingly, granted. The afore-referred documents are taken on record. 4. The office shall place these documents at an appropriate place in the file of the special appeal. 5. Application (25861 dated 27th August, 2007) stands disposed of." 3. While admitting the matter, this Court has observed as under:- "We heard Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. We also perused the communication dated 25.8.2007 sent by the Additional Settlement commissioner to appellant No. 1 stating therein that the erstwhile khasra no. 13 (admeasuring 23 bigha 19 biswa) as recorded in bandobast Samvat-Year 2015-2034 is now Khasra No. 15. 2. The matter requires consideration. 3. Hence, admit. 4. Mr. B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel waives service for respondents No. 1 to 5. 5. The ad-interim order dated 5th February, 2007 shall remain operative until disposal of appeal." 4. 13 (admeasuring 23 bigha 19 biswa) as recorded in bandobast Samvat-Year 2015-2034 is now Khasra No. 15. 2. The matter requires consideration. 3. Hence, admit. 4. Mr. B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel waives service for respondents No. 1 to 5. 5. The ad-interim order dated 5th February, 2007 shall remain operative until disposal of appeal." 4. Counsel for the appellants has taken us to the order of learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge has summarily dismissed the matter on 7.1.2007 which was filed in 2000 contrary to order passed by previous bench on 9th November, 2006 which reads as under:- "Learned Deputy Government Advocate is directed to place on record the revenue record pertaining to old Khasra No. 13 situated at Village Beed Papad, Tehsil and District Jaipur and corresponding record of the new Khasra numbers altered in pursuance of the settlement operation conducted in the Samwat Year 2015 including the Milan Kshetraphal." 5. Counsel for the appellants have also taken us to the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th January, 2007 which reads as under:- "S.D.M. Jaipur lists as directed to remain present in present court on 17.1.2007 in compliance of the order dated 9.11.2006. Ld. Dy. G.A. shall inform the concern the office." 6. Counsel for the appellants have contended that in view of ground F which reads as under:- "F. Because the plaintiff petitioners have also proved by the production of the certified copy of Khatoni Settlement of Samwat Year 2015 to 34 (Annexure No. 14) that during the year 2015 new settlement had taken place in the village of Tehsil, Jaipur and during settlement old Khasra No. 13 of village Beed Papad had been given new Khasra No. 15 and subsequently Khasra NO. 15 had been split into two Khasra Nos. namely 15/1 & 15/2. 15 had been split into two Khasra Nos. namely 15/1 & 15/2. The petitioners had made herculine efforts to obtain the certified copies of the Milan Kshtrefal of the disputed lands by submitting applications dated 17.6.94 (Annexure No. 6), 28.5.94 (Annexure No. 7) and application dated 19.5.94 (Annexure No. 10) but it was reported that the said documents were not available in the old land records and as such the same could not be produced and petitioners cannot be held responsible for not producing the Milan Kshtrefal of disputed lands and no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioners but the learned Lower Courts have completely ignored this aspect of the case and their judgments are wholly illegal." He has also taken us to the inspection report which reads as under:- [kljk uEcj 15@1 xzke chM+ ikiM+ rglhy t;iqj dk vkt fnuakd 14-03-1995 dks ekSdk uD'kk cuk;k x;k tks ekSdk fjiksVZ dk Hkkx gS] ftlesa n'kkZ;s vuqlkj ekdZ ,] ch] lh] M+h o bZ [kljk uEcj 15@1 dk iwohZ Hkkx gS] bldk if'peh dqN Hkkx vkS|ksfxd {ks= ,oa 80 QqV lM+d esa pyk x;k gSA iwoZ Hkkx ftls uD'ks esa ,] ch] lh] M+h] bZ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS] bl ij oknhx.k dk dCtk gS] blds mRrj esa dqN [kkyh tehu o M+kej jksM+ dks NksM+dj jhdks** dk 'kksfiax lsUVj gS] o nf{k.k esa [kkyh Hkwfe o M+kej jksM+ dks okn fo|k/kj uxj dj lsDVj uEcj 9 gS] blds iwoZ esa eygks=k uxj o if'pe esa vkS|ksfxd {ks= QsfDV~;ka o [kljk uEcj 15@2 gSA Counsel for the appellants have also taken us to the Nayab Tehsildar's order:- bl ij xSj lk;y dks jk0ys0 ds ,DV 1956 dh /kkjk 90 d lifBr /kkjk 91 ds vUrxZr uksfVl fn;k x;k x;k uksfVl dh rkehy fu;ekuqlkj gks pqdh gSA ds ckotwn xSj lk;y fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks u rks Lo;e~ mifLFkr gqvk vkSj u budh vkSj ls dksbZ tokc uksfVl izLrqr fd;k x;kA vr% mlds f[kykQ ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh dh ds vkns'k fn0 10-03-1986 dks fd;s x;sA He has taken us to the evidence of Rameshwar Lal Patwari and he emphasised on the following statement: bl Hkwfe dks th0,0M+h0 ds uke [kkrsnkjh dc ls gS] eq>s /;ku ugha vkSj tekcUnh dk uksV vifBr gSA ,Dth ih 6 esa ekdZ Hkwfe 15 ds nks fgLlksa dh rjehe ugha gS] tks ekdZ , gSA izkf/kdj.k ds uD'ks esa Hkh rjehe ugha gS] ,Dth ih 5 esa uD'ks ds [k0ua0 13 o ekStwnk uD'ks ds [k0ua0 15 dh vkd`fr ,d lh izrhr gksrh gSA Counsel for the appellants has taken us to the order passed by the authorities. The first authority has observed as under:- oknhx.k us ,oa okn ?kks"k.kk o nq:Lrh bUnzkt rFkk LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk fnuakd 07-07-1994 dks U;k;ky; gktk esa is'k fd;kA nkos lw{e o`rkUr bl izdkj gS fd [kljk uacj 15@1 o 15@2 cus gS ,d lkfcd ua0 15 ds Hkh iwoZ [kljk uacj 13 Fkk tks lokbZ t;iqj ds rRdkyhu fjdkM+sZM+ ds uD'ks esa yky jax ls vadu gksdj blds [kljk uacj 15 cus gS tks oknhx.k ds iwoZtksa dh iq'rsuh tk;nkn gSA [kljk uacj 15 dk vadu laor~ 2012 rd jgk gS ysfdu laor~ 2015 ls 2034 ds cUnkscLr esa fookfnr Hkwfe flok;pd ntZ dj nhA [kljk uacj 13 gky [kljk uacj 15@1] 15@2 oknhx.k ds dCts dk'r esa 'kq: ls vc rd jgh gS tks dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds iwoZ ls oknhx.k dkfct gSA oknhx.k dh Hkwfe dks dkjdwuku cUnkscLr }kjk flok;pd fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds dj fn;k tks xyr gSA bUnzkt nq:Lr djkus ckcr oknhx.k us /kkjk tk0Vh0 dk uksfVl fn;k gS] oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k 1 ls 3 us csn[ky djus dh ps"Vk dhA bl fcuk; nkok djuk vko';d gqvkA fookfnr Hkwfe [kljk uacj 15@1] 15@2 jdck 23&19 esa ls 12 ch?kk xouZesUV vkWQ bf.M+;k fefuLV~h vkWQ fM+QsUl dks izfroknh la0 3 esa ns nhA blesa oknhx.k us [k0ua0 15@2 jdck 12 ch?kk dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr j[krs gq, [kljk uacj 15@1 jdck 11 ch?kk 19 fcLok dk nkok djuk okfte vk;kA vr% oknhx.k dk okn fM+dzh Qjek;k tkdj oknhx.k dks vkjkth [kljk uacj lkfcdk 13 gky 15@1 jdck 11&19 ch?kk dk [kkrsnkj ntZ fd;k tkosA izfroknhx.k 1 ls 3 dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn Qjek;k tkos fd oknhx.k ds dCts dk'r esa u rks Lo;a ;k vU; O;fDr ls dksbZ gLr{ksi ugh djkosA He contended that the appellate authority while considering the matter has observed as under:- oknhx.k us vius nkok ds leFkZu esa 80 lh0ih0lh0 dh jlhn rglhynkj t;iqj ds vkns'k 10-03-1986 dh izfr udy tekcUnh la0 2049 ls 2052] udy fely gdh;r laor~ 1887 udy losZ'khV 1985 lu~ 1928&29 vkaf'kd udy tekcUnh la0 2011 ,oa 2012 udy rleheh V~sl is'k dh rFkk ekSf[kd 'kgknr lcwr esa ih0M+CY;w0 1 NksVw0 ih0 M+CY;w 2 ukuxjke ih0 M+CY;w 3 HkS:] ih0 M+CY;w] 4 tloUrflag] ih0 M+CY;w] 5 ukuwjke gYdk iVokjh ds c;ku dye cUn djk;s x;sA izfroknh la0 3 us vius lk{; nLrkost is'k ugha djds ekSf[kd 'kgknr esa ih0 M+CY;w 1 jkes'oj yky iVokjh] ts0M+h0,0 ds c;ku djk;s rFkk M+h0 M+CY;w 2 nsohflag {ks=h; lgk;d ts0M+h0,0 ds c;ku dye cUn djk;sA Counsel for the appellant has also contended that in the order which came to be passed by the Board of Revenue, it has wrongly considered the matter as under:- 5 & mijksDr vkifRr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 ds i'pkr fo}ku vfHkHkkod jsLiks0 us vius rdksZ esa eq[; rhu rF;ksa ij tksj fn;k%& 1 & fely gfdfd;r ds vuqlkj [kljk ua0 13 rFkk vU; [kljk ua0 dqy jdck 1543 ch?kk 16 fclok Fkk mlesa ls ek= 11 ch?kk 19 fcLok ds fy;s nkok fd;k x;k] tcfd iwoZ jdck 23 ch?kk 19 fcLok tks laor 2015 esa flok; pd ntZ gqvk Fkk] mlesa ls 12 ch?kk j{kk ea=ky; dks ns nh xbZA pwafd u;k [kljk ua0 15@2 Fkk] vxj vihykUV dk dCtk ml Hkwfe ij Hkh gksrk rks mUgsa bl vkoaVu dk Kku ugha gksuk] ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vihykUV dHkh Hkh bl Hkwfe ij dkfct ugha jgk] vkSj uk gh dHkh Hkh Hkwfe ij dk'r dhA 2 & uk gh vihykUV VhusUV gSA 1974 vkj0vkj0M+h0 ist 287 ds vuqlkj flQZ VhusUV gh dksbZ okn ntZ djk ldrk gSA 3 & Hkwfe flok;pd ntZ gksdj ljdkj esa fufgr gks xbZA tc fd jkT; ljdkj us 12 ch?kk Hkwfe j{kk eU=ky; dks vkoaVu dh ,oa 'ks"k 11 ch?kk 19 fcLok t;iqj fodkl izf/kdj.k ds uke ntZ gks xbZA tks Hkh Hkwfe t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds uke ntZ gks tkrh gS og vkcknh dks Js.kh esa vkus ls ml Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh jktLo okn ugha yk;k tk ldrk gSA ;g fl)kUr 1997 vkj0ch0ts0 oksY;e 4 ist 594 esa izfrikfnr gSA 6 & geus nksuksa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dh cgl lquus ds i'pkr fuEu fu"d"kZ ij igaqps gSA vihykUV us v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa esa fookfnr vkjkth dks vius dCts dk'r ,oa [kkrsnkjh dh iSf=d lEifr dks fl) djus ds lEcU/k esa fely gfdfd;r laor 1987 o tekcUnh lEor 2011 is'k dhA feyku {ks=Qy ds vHkko esa u;k o iqjkus uD'ks Hkh is'k fd;s x;sA ijUrq ;g fl) ugha gks ik;k fd iwoZ [kljk ua0 13 dk u;k ua0 15 cukA ijUrq jkt0 dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e vkus ls iwoZ fjdkM+Z esa [kljk ua0 13-2 FkkA mldk Li"Vhdj.k fjdkM+Z ls ugha gks ik;kA vihykUV iwoZ [kljk ua0 13 dk [kkrsnkj vius vki dks crkrk gS ijUrq [kkrsnkjh fl) ugha gksrh gSA jkt0 dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e esa [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr djus ds fy;s vihykUV dk dCtk gksuk\ Hkwfe ij dk'r djuk] rFkk yxku dks ns;rk gksuk vko';d gS] ijUrq vihykUV fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gSA fjdkM+Z ls fdlh Hkh oknh ds fookfnr Hkwfe ij dHkh dk'r djuk lkfcr gksrk gSA Hkw&izcU/k foHkkx }kjk iwoZ ds fjdkM+Z dks nksgjkrs gq;s Hkwfe dks flil; pd ntZ dh gS tks Hkwfe flok; pdz lsVyesUV ds ntZ Fkh og /kkjk 54 t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k izko/kkukuqlkj Lor% ts0M+h0,e0 ds gd esa vafdr gks xbZA mDr ukekUrdj.k ftlls 11 ch?kk 19 fcLok Hkwfe] t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds uke ntZ gqbZ dHkh Hkh vihykUV us vkifRr ntZ ugha djkbZA mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd vihykUV dk u rks fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk Fkk vkSj uk gh dkfcys dk'r Fkk] vr% vihy vihykUV [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ,oa fM+dzh ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA 7. He contended that the application under Order 41, Rule 27 was not considered by the Board of Revenue. He has also shown us to the map at Annexure-25 & 26 collectively and shown us to the land at Khasra No. 13 and 15 and his share in the same area. 8. In that view of the matter, he argued that the view taken by the all the authorities is required to be quashed and set aside and possession of the appellants-petitioners is required to be considered. 8. In that view of the matter, he argued that the view taken by the all the authorities is required to be quashed and set aside and possession of the appellants-petitioners is required to be considered. After the order of learned Single Judge, the application was allowed where the documents of 25th August, 2007 is allowed to be taken on record which reads as under:- mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd ftu rglhyksa ds jktLo xzkeksa esa feyku {ks=Qy rS;kj ugha gqvk gSA muesa xr cUnkscLr ds uD'ksa ,oa gky cUnkscLr ds uD'kksa dk feyku dj foHkkxh; ifji= dzekad @Hkwizvk@leq@Hkwdj@11@8@1@85@ikVZ&2@4031, fnuakd 06-12-1989 esa nh xbZ fgnk;r vuqlkj feyku {ks=Qy fgnk;r [kkukiwjh ds QkeZ la[;k 23 ds vuqlkj rS;kj fd;k tkrk gSA vki }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds layXu lEor~ 1987 dh fely gfd;r d uD'ksa esa [k0ua0 13 jdck 23 ch?kk dks cUnkscLr lEor~ 2015&2034 ds uD'ks ls feyku djus ij cUnkscLr lEor~ 2015&2034 esa bldk [ka0ua0 15 jdck 23 ch?kk 19 fcLok cuk;k tkdj felyhy cUnkscLr lEor~ 2015&2034 esa ntZ fd;k x;k gSA He has taken us to the information obtained under Right to Information Act which reads as under:- feyku {ks=Qy foHkkxh; ifji= la[;k 23 dh is'kkuh ds vuq:i rS;kj fd;k tkosxkA bl vfHkys[k dh rS;kjh gsrq iwoZ esa Hkw&izcU/k vk;qDr dk;kZy; }kjk le; le; ij foHkkxh; ifji=ksa ds ek/;e ls fn'kk funsZ'k nsrs gq;s vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s Fks ijUrq vkns'kksa dh iw.kZ :i ls vuqikyuk ugha gqbZ ;g vfHkys[k dk;Z lekIr gksrs gh xr orZeku uD'ks dk feyku djus ds i'pkr [kljk ys[ku ls vkjEHk dj jdck cjkjh ds lkFk ifjiw.kZ fd;k tkuk FkkA He has also taken us to the circular dated 6th December, 1989 where the State Government has observed as under:- ;g izi= o la'kks/ku Hkw&eki dh n'kk esa rS;kj fd;k tkrk gS orZeku esa lEiw.kZ jktLFkku esa iquekZi gks jgk gSA blesa Hkw&[k.M+ksa dh xr Hkw&eki esa nh xbZ [kljk la[;k o {ks=Qy rFkk gky Hkw&eki dh [kljk la[;k o {ks=Qy vafdr fd;s tkrs gSA gky o xr [kljk la[;k rFkk muds ikjLifjd {ks=Qy dh tkudkjh fd;s tkus ds fy;s bl izi= dk rS;kj fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA xr Hkw&eki ds i'pkr~ o vof/k Hkw&[k.M+ dh lhekvks] muds {ks=Qy o LoRo esa mRrjkf/kdkj] foHkktu] fodz;] nku] Hkwfe mi;ksx esa ifjorZu vkfn ds ifj.kkeLo:i vfHkys[k ds ewy Lo:i esa ifjorZu gksrs jgus ls vfHkys[k dh orZeku o okLrfod fLFkfr dks Li"V fd;s tkus ds fy;s ;g egRoiw.kZ vfHkys[k gSA blds vHkko esa xr o orZeku {ks=Qy dh rqyukRed leh{kk dfBu gSA feyku {ks=Qy foHkkxh; ifji= la[;k 23 dh is'kkuh ds vuq:i rS;kj fd;k tkosxkA bl vfHkys[k dh rS;kj gsrq iwoZ esa Hkw&izcU/k vk;qDr dk;kZy; }kjk le; le; ij foHkkxh; ifji=ksa ds ek/;e ls fn'kk funsZ'k nsrs gq, vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s Fks ijUrq vkns'kksa dh iw.kZ :i ls vuqikyuk ugha gqbZ ;g vfHkys[k dk;Z lekIr gksrs gh xr orZeku uD'ksa dk feyku djus ds i'pkr [kljk ys[ku ls vkjEHk dj jdck cjkjh ds lkFk ifjiw.kZ fd;k tkuk FkkA ftu rglhyksa ds ipsZ forj.k gksus ds i'pkr d`"kd leqnk; dh vkSj ls gtkjksa izkFkZuk i= xr {ks=Qy dh rqyuk esa orZeku esa jgh deh ckcr izkIr gq, gS ftudk fuLrkjk rqyukRed feyku {ks=Qy tSls egRoiw.kZ vfHkys[k rS;kj u gksus fd;s tkuk dfBu gks tkrk gSa blds vfrfjDr d`"kdksa ds okLrfod vf/kdkj vfHkys[k esa n'kkZuk Hkh dfBu gks x;k gSA lHkh rF;ksa dk ewY;kadu djus i'pkr feyku {ks=Qy Hkw&izcU/k dh izfdz;kvksa ds v/khu rS;kj djkuk vko';d gS ftu rglhyksa esa ;Fkk le; feyku {ks=Qy rS;kj ugha fd;k x;k Fkk muds feyku {ks=Qy rS;kjh gsrq fuEukuqlkj fgnk;r tkjh dh tkrh gSA izi = la[;k 23 ds dkWye uEcj ,d esa xr [kljk uEcj dk vad xzkeokj fd;k tkosxk] dkWye uEcj 2 esa xr [kljk uEcj dk {ks=Qy ntZ fd;k eSfV~d iz.kkyh ds vuqlkj duoVZ dj yky L;kgh ls n'kkZ;k tkosxk ,oa dkye ua0 3 esa orZeku [kljk uEcj dk vadu djrs gq;s dkye 4 esa orZeku {ks=Qy dk vadu fd;k tkosA blds i'pkr xr {ks=Qy duoVZ ls orZeku {ks=Qy dh rqyuk dh tkos rqyuk u gksus ij xr cUnkscLr esa cus [ksr ds Ldsp dks orZeku esa cus LdSp ls feyku fd;k tkosA vkSj bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapuk gksxk fd xr Ldsp dk {ks=Qy lgh gSA ijUrq orZeku Ldsp iwoZ ds vuqlkj ugha cukg ;k xr Ldsp dk dksbZ Hkkx vU; d`"kd [kkrsnkj ds [ksr esa lfEefyr gks x;k gS mldks vyx ls orZeku uD'ks esa cukuk vko';d gSA vxj xr cUnkscLr esa jdck cjkjh djus esa dksbZ =qfV gqbZ gS rks orZeku esa {ks=Qy dks fo'okliwoZd tkap dj orZeku dk lgh {ks=Qy gh vafdr djsa rFkk fo'ks"k fooj.k ds dkye esa iw.kZ Li"Vhdj.k dk ys[ku djsaA exj ,d izfr'kr fdUrq izfr [kljk uEcj deh is'kh vkus ij nj xqtj gh ekurs gq, nq:Lrh u djsaA tgka xr Ldsp dk ,slk fgLlk pkgs oks ,d ,s;j dk gh gks xr uD'ks esa cus Ldsp dks u"V djrk gks ;kuh ,slh Vs<+h] es<+h 'kDy dk cuk gks vkSj orZeku uD'ks esa mldk LdSp rduhdh n`f"V ls cVk uEcj iM+ ldrk gks vkSj okLrfod d`"kd ds [kkrs esa gks cVk uEcj M+kydj nq:Lr fd;k tkosaA ijUrq fujh{kd bldk iwjk /;ku j[ksxk fd rduhdh n`f"V ls orZeku uD'ks dh fLFkfr [kjkc u gks tkosA 9. Taking into account, he has contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct. 10. Counsel for the respondents has taken us to provisions of Section 90A & 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 which reads as under:- "[90-A.] Use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose - (1) No person holding any land for the purpose of agriculture, and no transferee of such land or any part thereof, shall use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon, shall use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon, shall use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon or otherwise for any other purpose except with the written permission of the State Government obtained din the manner hereinafter laid down and otherwise that in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission. (2) Any such persons desiring to use such land or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of agriculture shall apply for the requisite permission in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer or authority and every such application shall contain the prescribed particulars. (3) The State Government shall, after making or causing to be made due inquiry in the prescribed manner, either refuse the permission applied for or grant the same subject to the prescribed terms and conditions. (4) When any such land or part thereof is permitted to be used for any purpose other than that of agriculture, the person to whom such permission is granted shall be liable to pay to the State Government in respect thereof - (a) an urban assessment levied at such rate and in accordance with such manner is may be laid down in rules to be made in this behalf by the State Government, or (b) such amount by way of premium as may be prescribed by the State Government, or (c) both. 1[(5) If any such land is so used - (a) without the written permission of the State Government being first obtained, or (b) otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission, or (c) after such permission having been refused under sub-section (3), or (d) without making any of the payments referred to sub-section (4), the person originally, holding the land as aforesaid for the purpose of agriculture as well as all subsequent transferees, if any, shall be deemed to be a trespasser or trespassers, as the case may be, and shall be liable to ejectment from such land in accordance with Section 91 as if he or they had occupied or continued to occupy such land without lawful authority and to every such proceeding the provisions of Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) shall apply as if such land were in danger or being wasted, damaged or alienated: Provided, that State Government may, in lieu of having such person and the subsequent transferees so ejected from the land in question, allow him or them, as the case may be, to retain such land, use the same for any purpose other than that of agriculture on payment to the State Government, in addition to the urban assessment and premium payable under sub section (4) of fine by way of penalty as may be prescribed.] 91. Unauthorised occupation of Land - (1) Any person who occupies or continues to occupy any land without lawful monthly shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be summarily evicted there from by the Tehsildar at any time of his motion or upon the application of a local authority at whose disposal such land has been placed, and 69[any crop standing, or any] building or other construction erected. or anything deposited on such land shall, if not removed with in such reasonable time as the Tehsildar may from time to time fix for the purpose, be liable to be forfeited to the State and to be disposed of 1 [in the case of any such crop, in the manner he thinks fit and in other cases] as the Collector may direct: Provided that the Tehsildar may in lieu of ordering the forfeiture of any such building or other construction, order the demolition of the whole or any part thereof. 1 [(2) Such trespasser shall further be liable to pay, for 'each agricultural year during the whole or any part where of has been in such unauthorized occupation of the land, a penalty which may extend to fifty times the annual rent, or assessment, as the case may be, for the first act of trespass. In the case of each subsequent ad of trespass, he shall by the order of Tehsildar, be liable to commitment to civic person for a term which may extend to three months and to pay penalty to the extent as aforesaid. The amount of such penalty shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, and] 1 [(3) Where the trespasser ordered to be committed to civil prison under sub-section (2) satisfies the Tehsildar by whom he is ordered to be committed to civil prison that he intends to present an appeal, the Tehsildar shall order that such trespasser be released on his own bond for such periods will afford him sufficient time present the appeal and obtain stay order from the Appellate Court and such order shall so long as he is so released on bond be deemed to be suspended] (4) In any of the following cases, namely.- (i) where the trespasser does neither vacate the land not make appearance in response to the notice issue under sub-section (3), or (ii) where in response to such notice, the trespasser does not vacate the land and makes appearance but(a) does not show any such cause, or (b) makes any representation which is rejected after such inquiry and hearing as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case, the Tehsildar shall, unless, in the case covered by clause (ii) the trespasser undertakes to vacate the land within a week's time-and vacates it whine such time order the removal of the trespasser from such land and shall remove or depute any person, to remove him therefrom and take possession thereof; and if the Tehsildar or the person so deputed is opposed or impeded in taking possession of such land, the Tehsildar shall apply to a Magistrate having jurisdiction and such Magistrate shall enforce the surrender of the land to the Tehsildar. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the Tehsildar may, in case any such land belongs to the category specified in clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 97, sell it, with the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, to the trespasser upon payment by him of the premium therefor at the rate fixed under Section 96 and applicable to such land in addition to the assessment and penalty recoverable from him under sub-section (2) in respect of the whole period of unlawful occupation 1 [(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) - (a) whoever occupies any land without lawful authority or, having occupied such land before corning into force of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1992, fails to remove such occupation within fifteen days from the date of service of a notice in writing calling upon him to do so by the Tehsildar shall, on convict 'on, be punished with simple imprisonment which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees; and (b) whoever, being an employee of the State Government specifically entrusted by an order of the Collector in writing with the duty to stop or prevent an offence punishable under this sub-section wilfully or knowingly neglects or deliberately omits to stop of prevent such offence, shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both : Provided that, in the case of an offence under clause (a), the court may for any adequate or special reason to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one month : Provided also that no investigation of an offence under clause (a) of this sub section shall be made by an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police : Provided further that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under clause (b) except with the previous sanction of the Collector. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, "Land" means - (i) a pasture land as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955); and (ii) land redefined in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause Ca) of Section 103 including land appurtenant to a public well, Nadi, Johad and Talab.]" 11. Pursuant to the above, an order came to be passed on 23rd August, 1985 and he has taken us to the observations made by the authority on issue no. Pursuant to the above, an order came to be passed on 23rd August, 1985 and he has taken us to the observations made by the authority on issue no. 1, which reads as under:- 1 & rudh uEcj ,d & vk;k fookfnr vkjkth oknhx.k ds dCts dk'r o [kkrsnkjh dh iSf=d lEifRr gSA bl rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k vihykUV ij gSA oknhx.k us bl fl) djus ds fy, fely gdh;r lEor 1987] tekcUnh lEor 2011 is'k dh gSA lkFk gh feyku {ks=Qy ds vHkko esa u;s rFkk iqjkus uD'ks is'k fd;s gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl rudh dks blfy, oknh ds f[kykQ r; fd;k gS fd fookfnr vkjkth;kr dk feyku {ks=Qy is'k ugha fd;k gSA fely gdh;r lEor 1967 tks vkaf'kd Hkkx i=koyh esa is'k dh xbZ gS] mlds dkye uEcj 2 esa uke Fkksd o iV~Vh dk uke iVsy esa uUnk iq= M+kyw] fcjnk iq= lsokjke] xsaxk iq= uksyk] j?kqukFk iq= ';kscD'k eh.kk lkdhu nsg fgLlk cjkcj iVsyku fy[kk x;k gSA ;gh rF; dkye uEcj 3 esa nksgjk dj dkye uEcj 4 esa [kqn dk'r crk;k x;k gSA bl fely gdhy;r esa [kljk uEcj 6 dk 38 ch?k 12 fcLok] 7 dk 131 ch?kk 5 fcLok] 8 dk 64 ch?kk 5 fcLok] 9 dk 388 ch?kk 10 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 10 dk 257 ch?kk 11 fcLok] 11 dk 24 ch?kk 8 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 12 dk 145 ch?kk 9 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 13 dk 23 ch?kk 14 fcLok rFkk 15 dk 21 ch?kk 15 fcLok gksdj fdle catM+ lks;e nks;e crkbZ xbZ gSA lEor 2011 d tekcUnh [krkSuh esa [kljk uEcj 13@2 jdck 23 ch?kk 8 fcLok fcjnk iq= lsokjke xksaxk iq= uksyk] j?kqukFk iq= ';kscDl] lhrk iq= uUnk dkSe eh.kk fgLlk cjkcj ntZ fd;k x;k gSA ;g nLrkost Hkh vkaf'kd gSa iwjk nLrkost dh udy ugha gSA blesa [kljk uEcj 13@2 dh catM+ iwyk Hkwfe dh fdLe crkbZ gSA fely gdh;r esa [kljk uEcj 13 crkbZ xbZ gS] tcfd lEor 2011 dh tekcUnh esa 13@2 crkbZ xbZ tcfd lEor 2011 dh tekcUnh esa 13@2 crkbZ xbZ tcfd vihykUV dgrk gS fd mudk iwoZ [kljk uEcj 13 esa jkt0 dk'r0 vf/k0 vkus ls igys dCtk FkkA tks uD'kk V~sl is'k fd;k x;k gS] mlesa Hkh iwoZ [kljk uEcj 13 dk u;k uEcj 15 cuk gS ;g ckr fl) djkus dh dksf'k'k dh xbZ gS ijUrq jkt0 dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e izHkko esa vkus ls iwoZ jsdkM+Z esa [kljk uEcj 13@2 FkkA bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k u rks iVokjh ds c;kuksa ls gqvk vkSj u gh vU;Fkk jsdkM+Z ls gqvk gSA vihykUV iwoZ [kljk uEcj 13 dk [kkrsnkj vius vkidks crkrk gSA ijUrq tks jsdkM+Z i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] mlls [kljk uEcj 13 dk vihykUV [kkrsnkj fl) ugh gksrk gSA jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e esa [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr djus ds fy, vihykUV dk dkfct gksuk Hkwfe ij dk'r djuk rFkk yxku dh ns;rk gksuk vko';d gSA dCtk dk'r ds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh fjdkM+Z oknh vihykUV }kjk is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e ds izHkko esa vkus ls iwoZ ;k ckn dh dksbZ yxku vkfn dh jlhnsa is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd vihykUV ;k muds cqtqxZ rFkk Hkwfe/kkjh ds chp dksbZ yxku ns;rk dh lafonk gksA feyku {ks=Qy oSls rks is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS ijUrq tks 'kgknr ekSf[kd djkbZ xbZ gS rFkk uD'kk V~sl is'k fd;k x;k gS os [kljk uEcj 13 o 15 ds fy, is'k fd;s x;s gS] u fd 13@2 ds fy;sA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh vihykUV rudh uEcj ,d dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vihykUV fookfnr Hkwfe viuk 1@3 fgLlk crkrk gS] tcfd muds Lo;a ds }kjk is'k nLrkostksa ls mudks ek= 1@4 fgLlk curk gSA vihykUV us iwjs [kkrsnkjksa dk dksbZ ltjk ds ckjs esa Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k gSA vr% rudh uEcj ,d dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA** 12. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 13. Before proceeding with the matter, it will not be out of place to mention that on the basis of evidence on record which was available with him, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the matter and observed as under:- "Admittedly, the land in dispute had been entered as Sawai Chuk during settlement operations in the year 1958 itself. Subsequently, the mutation had also been made in the name of Jaipur Development Authority. The petitioner has alleged that before settlement operations the land which was in different Khasra number had been entered in the name of petitioners. The petitioners tried to get the corresponding entries in the old Khasra number and new Khasra number, however, failed to get the copies of the relevant record because the same were not available with the authorities. The petitioners filed the suit in the year 1994. The trial court as also appellate courts have come to a finding that the petitioners failed to prove his cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. The petitioners also failed to prove the corresponding entries of old Khasra number as also the new Khasra numbers. In absence of any original record, the burden was on the petitioner to prove the allegations as made in the suit. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the relevant records been missing, moreover, when admittedly, the land in dispute had been entered as Sawai Chuk in the year 1958 only. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioner did not bother to get the entries corrected for more than 35 years. As per statement of Patwari also the land has been entered as Sawai Chuk and the petitioner has only be treated as trespasser." 14. The contention that the petitioners were in possession of land of Khasra Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 15/1 and 15/2 which is one and same, the same is not established inasmuch as, the issue no. 1 which was decided by the authority a clear finding has been recorded that the petitioner was never in possession of khasra no. The contention that the petitioners were in possession of land of Khasra Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 15/1 and 15/2 which is one and same, the same is not established inasmuch as, the issue no. 1 which was decided by the authority a clear finding has been recorded that the petitioner was never in possession of khasra no. 13/1 and he was in possession 13/2 which has gone to the defence and nothing is proved on record to show that they have title over the said land on or after 1958 and the land was converted into Sawai Chuk land, nothing has been done from 1958 till issue was raised in 1993 that is for almost 35 years. It is true that the contention that the limitation will not apply, at the same time, while considering the matter, the Court has considered the delay of 35 years and when the possession itself was doubtful and there is clear breach of 19(A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which agricultural land is converted for construction. 15. In our considered opinion, the errors committed from 1958 and 1993 speaks voluminous about it and in view of the concurrent finding, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. No interference is called for. 16. It is a bogus litigation over the land and people are retaining the possession under the guise of litigation of 1993 when notice could not be executed for almost 25 years. 17. In that view of the matter, for retention of this land without authority of law, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited with Rajasthan Legal Services Authority.