Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1407 (RAJ)

Vinod Sharma v. Moti

2019-05-08

VEERENDER SINGH SIRADHANA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. Inextricably interlinked are the questions of facts and law involved in the above-noted two writ applications, and therefore, the matters have been taken up for final adjudication together by this common order, consented by the counsel for the parties. 2. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate (I), Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 18/1983, without impleading the petitioner-Vinod Sharma, compelled him to institute an appeal No. 65/1999, before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, granted the application condoning the delay in institution of appeal vide order dated 21st May, 2001. The petitioners-Moti and Ors (in Civil Writ Application 11141/2014), aggrieved thereof, instituted a revision petition No. TA/117/2001/Jaipur, before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein order dated 21st May, 2001, condoning the delay in institution of Appeal, was set aside holding that the reasons detailed out in the application seeking condonation of delay of 14 years under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, did not inspire confidence and were not worth relying upon for condonation of delay of 14 years vide order dated 31st October, 2003. Thus, rendered the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, barred by limitation, of which the petitioner-Vinod Sharma is aggrieved of. 3. Mori and ors.-Petitioners in the connected writ application No. 11141/2014, are also aggrieved of the order dated 19th March, 2011, made by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made by the Assistant Collector (I), Jaipur, in favour of the petitioners (Moti and Ors.), has been set aside being void ab-initio and nullity, on a reference made by the State-respondents. It is in this factual matrix that the matters have spiralled up to this Court. (i) Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are : that the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur, rejected request of Brahmanand (father of petitioner-Vinod Sharma) since deceased, for recording the land in his possession in the record of rights to the extent of 7¼ bighas of Khasra No. 95 and 210, of village Sukhalpura for the reason that the land was recorded as 'Charagahas'. On an appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority, found that in the samvat/year 2015, at the time of survey, Brahmananad was in possession of 7¼ bighas of land in Khasra no. 95, and therefore, granted the appeal to that extent. A revision petition instituted by the Gram Panchayat, Sukhalpura before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, concluded that for the matter was covered by Section 125 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), determination of the matter would depend upon factum of possession. Thus, according to mandate of Section 25 of the Act of 1956, land was required to be recorded by the Settlement Department, under Section 151, in the name of the person, who was found in possession after summary enquiry. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed with costs vide order dated 16th October, 1971, which attained finality. An application for correction of revenue entries was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer by petitioner-Vinod Sharma, which was declined on 13th January, 1997. An appeal was successfully instituted before the Additional Divisional Commissioner wherein setting aside the order date 13th January, 1997, directions were issued for compliance of the order made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated 15th October, 1971, upholding the order made by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19th June, 1968, which had attained finality. In the meanwhile, subject land of Khasra No. 95, was acquired in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board for which a notification was published on 5th May, 1982. Accordingly, mutation no. 78 was made in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board and possession handed over. These proceedings were concluded in the year 1982. (ii) Moti and Ors.-petitioners in the connected writ application, instituted revenue suit in the Court of Assistant Collector(I), Jaipur, on 8th April, 1983, which was decreed vide order dated 23rd July, 1983, i.e. within a period of about three and half months, wherein neither the petitioner-Vinod Sharma nor the Rajasthan Housing Board, recorded Khatedaar; were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The proceedings were instituted and concluded vide decree dated 23rd July, 1983, impleading Village Panchayat and Tehsildar only, who had no right, title and/or interest in the subject land. The proceedings were instituted and concluded vide decree dated 23rd July, 1983, impleading Village Panchayat and Tehsildar only, who had no right, title and/or interest in the subject land. (iii) Tehsildar, Sanganer, Jaipur, along with order made by the District Collector, Jaipur, dated 4th October, 2004, made a reference to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was declined vide order dated 6th January, 2009. A review application was successfully instituted by petitioner-Vinod Sharma, against the order dated 6th January, 2009, under Section 229 of the Act of 1956. Accordingly, vide order dated 4th September, 2012, the reference was restored to its original number. The Reference has been adjudicated upon vide impugned order dated 19th March, 2014, accepting it; of which petitioners-Moti and others, are aggrieved of in the connected writ application. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for the petitioners (Moti and others), vehemently argued that the Rajasthan Housing Board, was very much aware of the proceedings, as would be evident from the fact that Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, Advocate, represented it while award (Annexure-7), was made, wherein Rajasthan Housing Board was impleaded as non-applicant No. 3. Further, no objection was raised by Rajasthan Housing Board to the award, and therefore, reference made to and accepted by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer; is bad in the eye of law. 5. Referring to text of Section 88 and 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, the Act of 1955), learned counsel would contend that the suit proceedings were rightly instituted by the petitioners (Moti and others), as a suit for "declaration of right", is to be instituted under Section 88 of the Act of 1955, wherein no limitation has been prescribed. According to learned counsel, all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule, are to be heard and determined by a Revenue Court and no Court other than Revenue Court can take cognizance of such applications. Moreover, in the face of the explanation to Section 207 of the Act of 1955, rights of the petitioners would relate back to the time when the cause of action accrued. Thus, suit proceedings were rightly instituted by the petitioners before the Revenue Court as the nature of the land involved herein, was very much agricultural. 6. Moreover, in the face of the explanation to Section 207 of the Act of 1955, rights of the petitioners would relate back to the time when the cause of action accrued. Thus, suit proceedings were rightly instituted by the petitioners before the Revenue Court as the nature of the land involved herein, was very much agricultural. 6. Relying upon definition of 'Abadi land' and 'Abadi' in the backdrop of contemplation under Section 103 of the Act of 1956, learned counsel contended that nature of the land did not change for "land" as defined under Section 103(a) (i) (ii), would also include the land as defined in Clause (24) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Further, land acquired under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for the purpose of Government or a local authority or an educational institution remained the property of government. Hence, the land could not have been acquired by the State. Therefore, the reference made and granted suffers with an illegality that is apparent on the face of record. 7. According to learned counsel, no rights can accrue in Charagaha land. Moreover, there is no evidence brought on record to the contrary. Thus, the suit was rightly instituted and has been lawfully decreed vide order dated 23rd July, 1983. 8. Inviting the attention of this Court to Notification dated 9th February, 1982 (Annexure-R/1), learned counsel for the petitioners (Moti and others), would contend that the land of Khasra No. 95, has been specifically indicated as charagah. Hence, the land could not have been acquired. For the name of the petitioners, were not indicated in the notification; was the reason for their non-participation in the acquisition proceedings. 9. In support of his stand, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 8131/2012 (Hanuman & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.) decided along with connected matter SBCWP No. 734/2010 (Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Sujilal & Ors.), on 21st November, 2014 and the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 942 , emphasizing that land owned by the State cannot be acquired. Further, a dispute as to pre-existing rights of Government in land acquired cannot be referred either under Section 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further, a dispute as to pre-existing rights of Government in land acquired cannot be referred either under Section 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, award made in favour of a person cannot be called in question by claiming that the land acquired belong to the Government and not to that person. 10. Responding to allegations of fraud made by the counsel for the petitioner-Vinod Sharma, it is stated that specific pleas were raised refuting the allegations as would be evident from a glance of para No. 6 of the impugned. order dated 19th March, 2014, which have not been dealt with by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. Further, patta was executed in favour of Moti and others for which Revenue @ 8/- annas per bigha, was deposited which corresponds to 45 bighas. Thus, there is no fraud played by the petitioners-Mori and others. Moreover, the alleged administrative enquiry was conducted ex parte. That apart, communication dated dated 24th June, 1988, addressed to the Collector (Vigilance), Jaipur by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur-II, would further reflect that the allegations of fraud are absolutely without any basis and factual foundation. 11. Per contra: Mr. J.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the (petitioner-Vinod Sharma, in view of the order dated 19th June, 1968, made by the Revenue Appellate Authority and order dated 15th October, 1971, made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer; vehemently contended that it is evident from the materials available on record that the subject land was in the cultivatory possession of the father of the petitioner. And necessary entries were made on that basis in the record of rights. Hence, the impugned decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made without impleading the petitioner (Vinod Sharma) and Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur; as parties to the proceedings, suffered with the vice of non-joinder of the necessary and proper parties. Further, once the land was acquired and possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur; the Court of Assistant Collector (I), Jaipur, had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter for the land was no more agricultural land. Hence, the appeal instituted by the petitioner (Vinod Sharma), was rightly entertained condoning the delay vide order dated 21st May, 2001. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, fell in gross error while entertaining the Revision Petition instituted by Moti and Ors. Hence, the appeal instituted by the petitioner (Vinod Sharma), was rightly entertained condoning the delay vide order dated 21st May, 2001. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, fell in gross error while entertaining the Revision Petition instituted by Moti and Ors. and setting aside the order of condonation of delay dated 21st May, 2001, by the order dated 31st October, 2003, which has been assailed in the instant writ application by the petitioner-Vinod Sharma, wherein an order of status quo, was made by this Court. Petitioner-Vinod Sharma was impleaded as party respondent No. 7, in the connected writ application No. 11141/2014, instituted by the legal representatives of Moti in the year 2014. 12. Supporting the order dated 19th March, 2014, made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, on reference that has been adjudicated upon setting aside the decree dated 23rd July, 1983, learned counsel contended that the petitioners-Moti and ors, instituted the suit proceedings, which were decreed on 23rd July, 1983; did not implead either the Rajasthan Housing Board or the petitioner as party to the proceedings. Further, an administrative enquiry conducted by the State-respondents would reflect that the legal representatives of Moti played fraud by interpolation and forgery. Moreover, despite of acquisition of the subject land involved herein and mutation No. 78, opened in favour of the Rajasthan Housing Board on 21st June, 1982; the legal representatives of Moti instituted suit proceedings on 18th April, 1983, impleading Village Panchayat and Tehsildar, as opposite parties. Hence, decree dated 23rd July, 1983, has been rightly interfered with while accepting reference made by the State- respondents that has been adjudicated upon vide order dated 19th March, 2014, which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. J.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 7, in the connected writ application; referring to Section 5 of the Act of 1955, contended that definition of "land" under Section 5(24), has been defined to be a land let or held for agricultural purposes, including land occupied by houses or enclosure situated on a holding but excluding "Abadi' land. Thus, the subject land involved herein, was no more a land for agricultural purposes subsequent to its acquisition for Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, and therefore, reference made has been rightly accepted by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide order dated 19th March, 2014; setting aside the impugned decree dated 23rd July, 1983, which was void ab-initio in exercise of powers under Section 221 and 225 of the Act of 1955. 14. According to Mr. Yadav, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, was not impleaded as a party to the suit instituted by the petitioners (Moti and others in the connected writ application). Hence, the decree passed on 23rd July, 1983, suffered with the vice of non- joinder of the necessary party/parties and was liable to be set aside on that count as well. Moreover, Annexure-R/2, letter of possession (kabja Fard), makes it evident that the subject land involved herein, was charagah land and was handed over to Rajasthan Housing Board on 22nd May, 1982. Hence, this fact was very much in knowledge of the petitioners (Moti and others), in the connected writ application. 15. Mr. J.K. Yadav, inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 19th June, 1968 (Annexure-10), vehemently argued that Shri Bhramanand (deceased), father of the petitioner (Vinod Sharma), in whose favour the appeal was adjudicated with a specific finding that the subject land to the extent of 7 bighas 5 biswas, was in his cultivatory possession for agricultural purposes, and therefore, Appellate Authority rightly made the order for necessary correction of entries in the Revenue records. 16. Learned counsel would further contend that the order made on appeal dated 19th June, 1968, was subjected to revision (Revision Petition No. 176/1968), before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which confirmed the order dismissing the review petition that was instituted by Gram Panchayat, Sukhalpura, wherein Tehsildar representing the State of Rajasthan was also impleaded as a party, as would be evident from judgment dated 15th October, 1971, made by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which has attained finality, as it has not been challenged any further. 17. Mr. Yadav, also referred the order dated 20th April, 1988, made by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, on Appeal No. 33 of 1997 (Brahmanand (deceased)-1/1-Vinod Sharma Vs. 17. Mr. Yadav, also referred the order dated 20th April, 1988, made by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, on Appeal No. 33 of 1997 (Brahmanand (deceased)-1/1-Vinod Sharma Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board), wherein specific direction was made to ensure compliance of the order made by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dated 15th October, 1971 and of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 19th June, 1968; while setting aside the order dated 13th January, 1997, made by the Sub Divisional Officer (II), Jaipur. 18. In support of his stand, learned counsel has relied upon the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganpat Lal and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2014 (3) DNJ 881 , wherein the scope of Section 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955, fell for consideration in view of the acquisition proceedings and mutation opened; holding that suit would not be maintainable after acquisition of land. 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 20. Indisputably, Brahmanand (deceased), was in possession of the subject land involved herein in Samvat-year-2015, measuring 7¼ bighas in Khasra No. 95. Accordingly, claim was granted by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, vide order dated 19th June, 1968, and revision petition was declined by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide judgment dated 15th October, 1971, affirming the order made by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, on 19th June, 1968. It is also not in dispute that the orders aforesaid have attained finality as the same were not subjected to challenge any further. The land in possession of Brahmanand (deceased), to the extent of 7¼ bighas covered under Khasra No. 95 and 210 of village Sukhalpura, was acquired for the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, in view of the notification dated 5th May, 1982. In compliance of the notification aforesaid, on 22nd May, 1982, mutation No. 78, was carried out and possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, on 28th June, 1982. Thus, land measuring 45 bighas of Khasra No. 95, was recorded in the name of Rajasthan Housing Board. 21. In compliance of the notification aforesaid, on 22nd May, 1982, mutation No. 78, was carried out and possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, on 28th June, 1982. Thus, land measuring 45 bighas of Khasra No. 95, was recorded in the name of Rajasthan Housing Board. 21. Moti and others instituted a suit before the Court of Assistant Collector-(II), Jaipur, on 8th April, 1983, which was decreed vide decree dated 23rd July, 1983, without impleadment of Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, or petitioner-Vinod Sharma. Thus, on 8th April, 1983, when the suit proceedings were instituted, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, was the recorded Khatedar of the subject land involved herein. The parties impleaded to the suit proceedings i.e. Village Panchayat and Tehsildar, had no right, interest or concerned with the subject land. 22. Petitioner-Vinod Sharma was impleaded as a party to the reference proceedings on 22nd March, 2007, i.e. before the original order dated 6th January, 2009, by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, treating him to be a necessary party so also the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur. The order of their impleadment though was subjected to writ proceedings by Mori and others, but no interim order was made by the High Court. 23. The question as to institution of reference, in the face of availability of alternative remedy; is no more res-integra, in view of the adjudication by the Apex Court of the land in the case of Saroop Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 2011 (11) SCC 198 , as has been taken note of by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide impugned order dated 19th March, 2019. 24. Further, a glance of Section 5(24) of the Act of 1955, would reflect that agricultural land, which has been acquired for, and handed over by the Government, to Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur; ceased to be land for the purpose of Section 5(24) of the Act of 1955, and became 'Abadi' land. Furthermore, consequential entries in the record of rights had also been effected, as is evident from the materials available on record. 25. Furthermore, consequential entries in the record of rights had also been effected, as is evident from the materials available on record. 25. In the case of Laxmichand vs. Village Panchayat, 1996 AIR (SC) 523, the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms held that the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would not be subject to jurisdiction of the Civil Court for the Scheme of the Act of 1894, is complete in itself and thereby jurisdiction of Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act of 1894, by necessary implication stood barred. Thus, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the land of Khasra No. 95 of Village Sukhalpura. 26. In the case of Sharda Devi (supra), the Apex Court of the land dealt with a factual matrix of the case wherein the land was owned by the State, and therefore, could not be acquired whereas the instant case at hand, the rights of petitioner-Brahmanant (deceased) stood finally determined vide order dated 19th June, 1968 and 15th October, 1971. Hence, the opinion has no application to the factual matrix of the case at hand. 27. In the case of Ganpat Lal and Others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the scope and ambit of Sections 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955, in somewhat identical factual matrix in no uncertain terms, observed that a suit for declaration of 'Khatedari' rights and permanent injunction on the basis of 'Parcha Khatauni' decreed after acquisition proceedings concluded and mutation opened; such suit proceedings could not be maintained after acquisition of the land. At this juncture, it will be profitable to take note of the text of paragraphs 16 to 18, which reads thus: "16. It is not in dispute that the appellants filed a suit for claiming Khatedari rights and for grant of injunction on the basis of Parcha Khatauni (Exp. 1) pertaining to the year 1956 while claiming that in the said document, name of their father was shown as Khatedar. However, the said document was a photo copy and was not produced in original. It has also come on record that no corresponding entry to the said document exists in the revenue record. From perusal of the said document, it is not borne out that which authority has issued the same. However, the said document was a photo copy and was not produced in original. It has also come on record that no corresponding entry to the said document exists in the revenue record. From perusal of the said document, it is not borne out that which authority has issued the same. It is true that during the course of trial, if any document is produced and exhibited in evidence without any objection regarding its admissibility, at a subsequent stage it is not permissible in routine course to question the admissibility of said documents, however when the existence of document or the authenticity of document is doubtful, it is always open for the party concerned to question it or the Court dealing with it, to examine the very existence of the said document or authenticity and the said document. In the case in hand, the existence of Parcha Khatauni, on the basis of which the appellants have claimed Khatedari rights and grant of injunction was not established and it is found that no such Parcha Khatauni exists in the revenue record. In such circumstances, when the appellants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to the effect that their father was the Khatedar of the land of Khasra Nos. 125 and 123 of village Sunthala, the trial court has certainly erred in declaring Khatedari rights in favour of the appellants for the land in dispute. The Board of Revenue as well as the learned Single Judge have taken into consideration the material available on record in its entirety and held that the appellants have failed to produce sufficient evidence for grant of Khatedari rights in their favour in respect of the land in question and in the present set of circumstances, we are of the opinion that the said findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as the Board of Revenue are not liable to be interfered with. 17. Apart from that, it is not in dispute that the land of Khasra No. 123 of village Suthala was acquired by the State Government vide acquisition proceedings, initiated on 22.02.1976 and concluded on 28.10.1976. The possession of the land of Khasra No. 123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.09.1978 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of it on 23.01.1980. The possession of the land of Khasra No. 123 was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 16.09.1978 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of it on 23.01.1980. Similarly, in respect of Khasra No. 125, the acquisition proceedings were initiated on 16.08.1979 and concluded on 16.07.1980 and the possession was handed over to the Rajasthan Housing Board on 13.11.1980 and mutation was also sanctioned in its favour on 11.05.1981. The said acquisition proceedings were never challenged by the appellants and, therefore, they became final. The contention of the appellants that the said acquisition proceedings were declared as lapsed vide order dated 14.02.1992, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Urban Development and Housing Department, is countered by the Rajasthan Housing Board by producing copy of the order dated 11.09.2001, whereby the same authority has withdrawn the order dated 14.02.1992, while observing that the declaration of lapse of the acquisition proceedings was not in accordance with law. 18. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that when the acquisition of the land in question is intact, the suit filed by the appellants for grant of Khatedari rights was not maintainable as per the provisions of sections 63(iii) and 16(vi) of the Act of 1955. 28. The opinion referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners-Moti and others in the case of Hanuman & Ors. (supra), is of no help for the facts of the case at hand, are clearly different and distinguishable. Further, in view of the opinion of Division Bench of this Court relying upon the adjudication of the Apex Court of the land; the impugned order made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, dated 19th March, 2014, cannot be faulted. 29. Be that as it may, rights of the petitioner [Brahmanand (deceased) father of the petitioner (Vinod Sharma)], were already determined with reference to land measuring 7 bighas 5 biswas in his favour in the year 1968 and 1971. 29. Be that as it may, rights of the petitioner [Brahmanand (deceased) father of the petitioner (Vinod Sharma)], were already determined with reference to land measuring 7 bighas 5 biswas in his favour in the year 1968 and 1971. The reference made as to the legality and validity of decree dated 23rd July, 1983, was rightly entertained and adjudicated upon by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide order dated 19th March, 2014, for the decree dated 23rd July, 1983, was void ab-initio and nullity, in the eye of law and such a decree can be challenged at any stage as has been held in the case of Balwant N. Vishwamitra vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule, 2004(8) SCC 706 . 30. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid as well as conclusions arrived at by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide impugned order dated 19th March, 2019, supported with reasonings; the decree dated 23rd July, 1983, made by Assistant Collector-I, Jaipur, was rightly interfered with and set aside treating it to be void ab-initio. 31. In the result SBCWP No. 11141/2014, fails and is hereby dismissed. 32. For the 'Khatedari' rights of petitioner-Vinod Sharma in SBCWP No. 7424/2003, have already been determined to the extent of land measuring 7 bighas and 5 biswas, as would be evident from the order dated 19th June, 1968, made by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer, confirmed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, vide order dated 15th October, 1971, which has attained finality; writ application instituted by petitioner-Vinod Sharma, merits acceptance. 33. As an up-shot of the aforesaid writ application No. 7424/2003, succeeds, and is, hereby allowed. 34. Impugned order dated 31st October, 2003, is hereby quashed. 35. Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to proceed further and ensure compliance of the orders dated 19th June, 1968 and 15th October, 1971, aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented. 36. No costs. 37. A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.