JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “Therefore it is prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed, impugned orders dated 07.10.1996 annexure 1, 2 & 3 passed by the respondent No. 1 to 3 Board of Revenue and trial & appellate court be set aside, or matter be remanded back to the trial court. (i) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be issued. (ii) costs of the writ petition be awarded.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, one Kalu Ram (plaintiff - father of the respondents no. 5 & 6) who had purchased a piece of land in the year 1959 from numberdar, in arazi number 2806 rakba 2 biswa in Village Merooni, Tehsil Sahada Mukam Gangapur and accordingly, mutation entries were made in the revenue records; a civil suit bearing no. 17/91 was instituted by him on 08.06.1970 before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Gangapur for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present petitioner (Municipal Board) and respondent no. 4 (Tehsildar, Sahada, Head Office, Gangapur) as on 06.06.1970, the petitioner had decided to sell the above-said piece of land in auction by dividing the same into two plots. 2.1. Thereafter, ten issues were framed and the learned SDO gave its decision in favour of the plaintiff, vide order dated 28.03.1995, while holding that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land in question for more than twelve years, and thus on the basis of the adverse possession, had become the owner of the land. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before learned Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bhilwara and after considering the material available on record before it, the learned RAA vide order dated 29.01.1996, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned SDO, and further held that the petitioner had no locus to agitate the matter, as the plaintiff was the khatedar of the land in question. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the learned Board of Revenue (BoR) for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which was dismissed on 07.10.1996 at the admission stage itself, with an observation that there was no need of interference, given the concurrent findings of both the learned revenue authorities below. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the year 1959, the numberdar had no right to sell the land in question to the ancestors of respondent no. 5 & 6 i.e. to the plaintiff, as the land in question was earlier a part of the Gwalior State, and after coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, the land in question merged with the State of Rajasthan. 3.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that in the year 1955, after the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force, the numberdari system was abolished, and thus, the numberdar had no right whatsoever to sell or purchase any land, thus a sale deed executed in 1959 was void-ab-intio in the eye of law; hence, the respondents no. 5 & 6 had no title over the land in question. 3.2. It was further submitted that both the learned SDO as well as learned RAA had relied on the principles of adverse possession, but the same were not applicable in the present case, as the land in question was a government land, and for the principle of adverse possession to be applicable, the possession must be fro more than 30 years. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned BoR refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the learned revenue authorities below; however even in second appeal, if any substantial question of law arises, then the second appellate court i.e. BoR, is required to deal with the same. As per learned counsel, in the present case, the substantial question of law involved was whether the adverse possession of more than 12 years was applicable in case of a government land or not, but the same was not duly dealt with by the learned revenue authorities below. 4. As per learned counsel, in the present case, the substantial question of law involved was whether the adverse possession of more than 12 years was applicable in case of a government land or not, but the same was not duly dealt with by the learned revenue authorities below. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that as per the proclamation issued by the District Collector, Bhilwara bearing no. 13/15-11-1959 under the Rajasthan Zamidari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959; the said Act was abolished with effect from 15.11.1959, and thus the estates of the Zamidars vested in the State Government from the said date, whereas the sale deed in question was executed at a much earlier date i.e. on 29.05.1959. 4.1. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the order dated 26/27.08.1975 passed by the Tehsildar Sahada, Gangapur in Case No. 17/1991 (LRs. of Kalu Ram vs. Administrator, Nagar Palika, Gangapur) by which the land in question was ordered to be regularized in favour of the respondent no. 5, on receipt of the amount to be deposited with the State for conversion of the land in question. 4.2. It was further submitted that all the three learned revenue authorities below had recorded concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff, while declaring him to be the owner of the land in question. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the father (plaintiff) of the respondents no. 5 & 6 had purchased land in question in the year 1959 from numberdar and the said land became a part of the State of Rajasthan in pursuance of the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance (XX of 1949) in the year 1950 and the plaintiff was in possession of the said land for almost 12 years, before the petitioner decided to auction the land in question by diving the same into two plots; aggrieved of this action, the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the SDO and the decision was given in his favour; thereafter the matter was appealed before RAA and BoR as well however both the courts gave their decision in favour of the plaintiff. 7. 7. This Court is conscious of the observations made by the SDO wherein the decision was given in favour of the plaintiff, while holding that even though in the year 1950, the land in question had become part of the State of Rajasthan, yet the numberdar who had sold the said land, was called Pattidar and was seen as a Khatedar and in accordance of the prevalent laws was eligible to sell the land in question; further as far as the question of possession of the plaintiff since the year 1959 was concerned, the Tehsildar himself had ascertained the same by his reply and that the plaintiff was in possession for 12 years, resulting in ownership through adverse possession as well; also the land in question was an agricultural land and after renaming on 15.06.1977 was converted into Aabadi land; thus, it was clear that the petitioner had no right to auction the land in 1970 as it was not part of Aabadi land. 8. This Court further observes that there are concurrent findings of the learned revenue authorities below in favour of the plaintiff, wherein the learned RAA had upheld the decision of the learned SDO and further held that the petitioner had no locus-standi to contest the matter; also the learned BoR was in agreement with the findings of the decision of learned SDO as well as the learned RAA. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.