ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the second appeal filed by the State has been allowed. 3. The brief facts necessary to be narrated are that the petitioner being daughter of Miran Khan was in possession of agricultural land situated at Khasra No.17 & 19 of village Punasar, Prior to this, father of the petitioner was in possession of this land and erstwhile, it was called as Khasra No.4 of village Devikot. Because of famine, father of the petitioner left his village for earning his livelihood. In these circumstances, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer in proceedings No.72/1970 under section 63 (8) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 passed an order dated 11.08.1971 by which 46 bighas land of Khasra No.46 was recorded as Government land. Since, the petitioner was residing on the subject piece of land and when, she came to know the fact regarding passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer, she preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority, (Barmer- Jaisalmer) vide its order dated 18.07.2006 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner while setting aside the order dated 11.08.1971. Against the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the State preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide its order dated 09.08.2019 allowed the appeal preferred by the State while setting aside the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Aggrieved against the order dated 09.08.2019, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Board of Revenue has committed an error while allowing the appeal filed by the State as the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the petitioner is legal heir of Miran Khan and delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the fact of passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 and since the petitioner is an illiterate Pardanashin lady, therefore, she was not moving out of her dwelling house (Dhani) and adjoining land. Thus, she was not aware of the proceedings undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer. Thus, she was not aware of the proceedings undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record succession certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Devikot, passport copy of the petitioner and application for treating her to be a beneficiary under the Bhamashah scheme. Learned counsel further submits that affidavits filed before the learned first appellate authority were taken note of and were relied upon for considering the fact that the petitioner is a lawful legal heir of Miran Khan. It is also contended that even the documents annexed with the present writ petition also go to show that the petitioner is the only legal heir of Miran Khan and no documents contrary to the documents filed by the petitioner has been filed by the State to show that the petitioner is not a legal heir of Miran Khan. It is, therefore, submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed an error in allowing the second appeal filed by the State. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be said to be a conclusive factor for assuming the petitioner to be a lawful and legal heir of Miran Khan. Learned State counsel further submits that these documents have been prepared by the petitioner after the orders passed by the lower courts. It is also contended that delay of 35 years in approaching the first appellate authority is also not properly explained. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed and the order dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer may be upheld. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The impugned order dated 11.08.1971 is passed on the basis of report submitted by the Patwari but the order dated 11.08.1971 does not reflect that any detailed inquiry was conducted in the matter before passing the order in the present case. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The impugned order dated 11.08.1971 is passed on the basis of report submitted by the Patwari but the order dated 11.08.1971 does not reflect that any detailed inquiry was conducted in the matter before passing the order in the present case. The petitioner being a legal heir of Miran Khan filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 18.07.2006 recorded the finding based on certain affidavits filed by the present and Ex- Sarpanch Smt. Jethi Devi, Shri Lakhe Khan and Shri Kanhaiya Lal and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the only legal heir of Miran Khan who is in occupation of the land. It has also been recorded that since the petitioner is an illiterate lady, therefore, she was not aware of passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer, therefore, the delay occasioned in filing the appeal was condoned. The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer has reversed the finding on the issue of delay and held that there is no reasonable explanation for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner after a long period of 35 years. It has also been held that the petitioner could not be a legal heir of Miran Khan as requisite documents corroborating the same have not been produced, therefore, the second appeal filed by the State was allowed. This court while considering the documents available on record is satisfied that the petitioner is the legal heir of Miran Khan. Additionally, on the basis of the fact that succession certificate has been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Devikot, passport which is prepared after scrutiny of the veracity of whereabouts of a person and card for getting the benefits under the Bhamashah scheme sufficiently go to show that the petitioner is the legal heir of Miran Khan. As far as delay in approaching the first appellate authority is concerned, this court is satisfied that the reasoning given by the first appellate authority i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority is in conformity with the provisions of law. The fact that the petitioner being an illiterate lady with rural background was not aware of the fact of passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 is also clearly established. The fact that the petitioner being an illiterate lady with rural background was not aware of the fact of passing of the order dated 11.08.1971 is also clearly established. It is also noted that after passing of the order dated 11.08.1971, the petitioner is in occupation of the subject piece of land and nobody from the side of official respondents approached the petitioner for vacation of the subject piece of land. This fact also goes to show that the petitioner was in peaceful possession over the land received by her in inheritance from her father. 8. In the humble opinion of this court, the reasoning adopted by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in its order dated 09.08.2019 is not correct. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner merits acceptance and the same is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer is quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2006 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, (Barmer- Jaisalmer), Headquarter, Jodhpur is upheld.