ORDER : 1. The case is listed in the ‘Orders’ category, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.03.2003 (Annex. R/2) passed by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (respondent No.2) and its consequential order dated 31.03.2003 (Annex.10) passed by the District Collector, Pali. 3. Brief facts of the present writ petition are that there is a temple popularly known as Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Somnath Ji at Pali. The lands in Khasra Nos. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041 were recorded in the name of Deity Somnathji as Dolidar. The land was recorded in the name of Deity Somnathji and being a Maufidar was entitled to collect the land revenue from the tenant and the same was not required to be paid to the Government. At the time of jagir resumption, Khasra Nos. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041 were shown under the cultivation of Kunna s/o Heera and Urja s/o Moti Keer. They were shown as tenants. The State Government on 24.04.1982 (Annex.3) passed an order in relation to some of the unauthorized sales made by the Pujaris in the State of Rajasthan and directed that if they deposit a fixed amount, they may be granted khatedari rights. The petitioners’ land was also brought into the ambit of order dated 24.04.1982. 4. While this dispute was going on, a reference No. 102/1998 dated 26.03.1996 was made by the Collector, Pali under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for canceling the mutation entries Nos. 998 and 1000. These mutation entries included the lands belonging to the petitioners also. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.12.1999 dismissed the reference No. 102/1998 made by the Collector, Pali and it was held by the Board that since at the time of resumption of jagir, the land of Khasra Nos. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041 were recorded in the khatedari of Kunna s/o Heera and Urja s/o Moti Keer and, therefore, they were khatedars. 5. The order dated 03.12.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue was again challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of filing a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 387/2002. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041 were recorded in the khatedari of Kunna s/o Heera and Urja s/o Moti Keer and, therefore, they were khatedars. 5. The order dated 03.12.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue was again challenged by the State of Rajasthan by way of filing a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 387/2002. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 20.04.2004. The order of the Single Bench was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court through D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 444/2004 but the same too was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.02.2018. 6. During the pendency of the writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 387/2002, an order was passed by the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (respondent No. 2) on 06.03.2003 holding that the petitioners were not the khatedars of the land as the land stood mutated in the name of Deity. In pursuance of the order passed by the State Government on 06.03.2003, the Collector, Pali passed an order dated 31.03.2003 declaring the earlier orders extending khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners to be illegal and directed to transfer the lands in the name of Deity. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the reference made by the Collector, Pali, learned Board of Revenue held that since at the time of jagir resumption, the lands were cultivated by Kunna and Urja, they were the khatedar tenants and thus, the lands should be mutated in the name of Kunna and Urja and the same cannot be mutated in the name of Deity. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue were confirmed by the Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. The order passed by the respondents for treating the lands belonging to the petitioners in the name of Deity is unjust, illegal and unreasonable. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 06.03.2003 and 31.03.2003 passed by the respondent qua the petitioners may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kailash Choudhary and Shri R.D. Bhadu, learned Dy. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 06.03.2003 and 31.03.2003 passed by the respondent qua the petitioners may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kailash Choudhary and Shri R.D. Bhadu, learned Dy. Government Counsel vehemently oppose the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and submit that once the revenue authorities have come to the conclusion that at the time of jagir resumption, the lands belonged to Deity and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the khatedari rights of those lands. He further submits that the revenue authorities had rightly entered the present piece of land in the name of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Somnath Ji, Pali as at the time of jagir resumption, the lands were in the name of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Somnath Ji. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to dispute the fact that the land in dispute was the subject-matter of the reference made by the Collector, Pali and the same was decided by the Board of Revenue on 03.12.1999. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that as per the latest revenue entries, this land which is the subject-matter of this writ petition has been mutated in the name of Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji Somnath Ji. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition is having no force and the same may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. The fact that at the time of the jagir resumption, the land which was being cultivated by Kunna and Urja who were khatedar tenants was recorded in the revenue records. Kunna and Urja were treated as the cultivators of the land of Khasra Nos. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041. Although, the revenue authorities passed different orders from time to time and on finding certain discrepancies in recording the names of persons who were not entitled to hold those lands in their favour, a reference was made by the Collector, Pali to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after thread bare discussion on the matter held that Kunna s/o Heera and Urja s/o Moti Keer were in khatedari rights of Khasra Nos. The Board of Revenue after thread bare discussion on the matter held that Kunna s/o Heera and Urja s/o Moti Keer were in khatedari rights of Khasra Nos. 1035, 1036, 1037, 1040 and 1041 being the cultivators of the land at the time of jagir resumption and, therefore, the revenue entries made in their favour are not required to be disturbed and they should be treated as khatedar tenants of the lands. 12. It is noted that the lands of khasra numbers mentioned in the present writ petition were the subject-matter of the reference decided by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.12.1999 13. The fact that the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 03.12.1999 was challenged by way of filing a writ petition before this Court and this Court after deliberating the issue in detail specifically held in para No. 16 as under: “16. In my considered opinion, no doubt the land in question originally belonged to Deity, but in view of the circular dtd. 24.04.82 (Annex. 4) issued by the State Government, the same was transferred in the name of the private respondents between the period from 24.4.82 to 15.10.87 and Khatedari rights were conferred on them by the Collector (respondent No.3) and therefore, cancellation of these transactions at this late stage would not be justified and further the transactions which were made between 24.4.82 to 15.10.87 were saved by the circular of the State Government dtd. 13.4.93 (Annex. 6) and thus at later stage in the year 1996 through letter dtd 24.5.96 (Annex. 11), to say that the circular dtd. 13.4.93 (Annex. 6) was not correctly issued, would not be justified and therefore, the order dtd. 3.12.99 (Annex. 10) passed by the Board of Revenue (Respondent No.1) does not require any interference by this Court as the same does not suffer from basic infirmity or illegality and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.” 14. The order passed by this Court was further assailed before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing a D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 444/2004 (State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.) and the same too was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2018. 15. The order dated 06.03.2003 was passed by the respondents on the basis of the order dated 24.05.1996. Appl. Writ No. 444/2004 (State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.) and the same too was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2018. 15. The order dated 06.03.2003 was passed by the respondents on the basis of the order dated 24.05.1996. This Court finds that since the letter dated 24.05.1996 has been quashed giving effect to the orders passed between the period of 24.04.1982 to 15.10.1987, therefore, the revenue authorities clearly fell in error by passing the order dated 06.03.2003 qua the petitioner and the consequential order dated 31.03.2003 against the petitioner. 16. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 06.03.2003 as well as the consequential order dated 31.03.2003 qua the petitioners is quashed and set aside. It is further ordered that the entries in the revenue record be recorded in the name of the petitioners. As a consequence, the revenue authorities are directed to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. 17. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.