JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(i) by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 (Annex-7) passed by the Board of Revenue so also the order dated 28.11.2016 (Annex-4) passed by the SDO, Bagoda may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) by an appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 22.3.2017 (Annex-6) passed by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur may kindly be restored.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, seeking a clarification as to the boundary and demarcation of his property, moved an application before the Sub Divisional officer, Bagoda, which was rejected while holding that the demarcation of the land in question has already been made. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mauka report dated 10.06.2016 of the land in question so prepared, was done in the absence of the petitioner, and therefore, the concerned SDO vide order dated 28.11.2016 directed the concerned Tehsildar to constitute a revenue team to conduct a site inspection of the land in question, pursuant to which a fresh mauka report dated 06.12.2016 was prepared. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that being aggrieved by the aforementioned order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the SDO, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, which was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2017, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2016, and the matter was remanded back to the concerned SDO to conduct a fresh demarcation of the land in question in the presence of both the parties, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the concerned parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that challenging the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, the respondent No. 2 preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2018, the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was quashed, and the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the SDO was upheld. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Board of Revenue, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court under its writ jurisdiction, averring that the said order, which upholds the order passed by the concerned SDO, is bad, on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has encroached upon the khatedari of respondent No. 2 and that the brother of the petitioner being a government servant and having political connections, has sought to legalize the encroachment so made by the petitioner through coercion and pressure tactics. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of the respondent no. 2 by about 10 feet, and in doing so, has destroyed the large trees and bushes on the property in question. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also attempted to illegally construct a wall and a way on the property in question. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also submits that using his brother's political connections as well as with the assistance of the local police, the petitioner has tried to pressurize the respondent no. 2 who is a ‘kaashtkaar’ i.e. a cultivator/farmer, who is a poor and illiterate person, but the petitioner has failed to succeed in doing so. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 12. This Court observes that the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Board of Revenue which upheld the earlier order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the concerned SDO and quashed the order 22.03.2017 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner suffers from an infirmity on count of the fact that prima facie the same is violative of the principles of natural justice, since it upholds the order of the SDO which found its basis in the mauka report so generated by the concerned Revenue Authorities, and the said report was prepared in absence of the petitioner and without affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. 13. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be remanded back to the concerned SDO with a direction to get the fresh inspection of the site in question conducted, and demarcate the boundaries of the land in question, and thereafter, a fresh mauka report be prepared, at the cost to be solely borne by the petitioner. 14. Thus, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the SDO, Bagoda, the matter is remanded back to the concerned SDO with a direction to get the fresh inspection of the site in question conducted, and demarcate the boundaries of the land in question, and thereafter, a fresh mauka report be prepared, at the cost to be solely borne by the petitioner. All pending applications stand disposed of.