JUDGMENT : 1. The matter pertains to the year 1999, and thus, listed under the category of “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”. 2. The instant petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 29.06.1998 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, whereby the said revenue authority made a reference before the learned Board of Revenue for Rajasthan (BoR), Ajmer; the order dated 09.09.1998 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned BoR accepting such reference while setting aside the order dated 10.05.1989 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, IGNP, Kolayat (Assistant Commissioner’), has also been assailed in the instant petition. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioners, are that the petitioners had filed an application under Sections 125 & 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) before the Assistant Commissioner for correction of entries in the revenue records. It was stated that the petitioners were in cultivatory possession of the land comprising khasra no. 708 Rakba 86 bighas at Village Gogariyawala, since samwat 2012, and therefore, the said land may be recorded in their name. Thereafter, the statements of one Phoosa Ram and Harlal were recorded regarding the possession of the petitioners over the land in question. 3.1. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 10.05.1989 allowed the aforesaid application, and passed a decree in favour of the petitioners; it was also directed that the mutation entries be made accordingly. 3.2. Subsequently, the Collector-cum-Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, Bikaner, vide the impugned order dated 29.06.1998, made a reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 82 of the Act of 1956 before the learned BoR, against the aforesaid order dated 10.05.1989. The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 accepted the reference and set aside the order dated 10.05.1989. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question is the ancestral land of the petitioners and they are cultivating the same, since the summary settlement made in samwat 2012 and regular settlement samwat 2017, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed their application while ordering correction of the entries in the revenue records. 4.1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question is the ancestral land of the petitioners and they are cultivating the same, since the summary settlement made in samwat 2012 and regular settlement samwat 2017, and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed their application while ordering correction of the entries in the revenue records. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not preferred any appeal against the order dated 10.05.1989, but the reference in question was made after an inordinate delay of almost 10 years, which is not permissible under the law. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner and the learned BoR committed grave irregularity in passing the impugned orders, because the petitioners’ possession over the land in question is in the capacity of being recorded khatedars, which is clear from the aforementioned order dated 10.05.1989 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1118/2000, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 04.01.2005; (b) Chutra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3993/1998, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 08.12.2011); (c) Radha Kishan Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6733/2003, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 26.08.2015; and (d) Poosa Ram Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.179/1989, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 18.09.1995. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have not produced any document before the learned revenue authorities below regarding their possession over the land in question. It was further submitted that Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat no.4 also stated that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question, as claimed by them. 5.1. It was further submitted that Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat no.4 also stated that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in question, as claimed by them. 5.1. It was also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 10.05.1989 solely on the basis of the statements of two witnesses, who did not even identify the land in question, nor have not deposed anything which could substantiate the claim of the petitioners in regard to their possession over the land in question. 5.2. It was further submitted that the reference was made by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner because the order dated 10.05.1989 was nothing but a grave irregularity, and therefore, the reference in question was rightly made and accepted, vide the impugned orders. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that the petitioners had filed the aforementioned application seeking correction of entries in the revenue records, which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 10.05.1989, Thereafter, the Collector-cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner made the aforementioned reference vide the impugned order dated 29.06.1998 before the learned BoR, against the order dated 10.05.1989. The learned BoR vide the impugned order dated 09.09.1998 accepted such reference, while setting aside the order dated 10.05.1989 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 8. This Court further observes that the Assistant Commissioner had drawn the conclusion regarding khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners only on the basis of the statements of two witnesses i.e. Phoosa Ram and Harlal, and apart therefrom, the petitioners did not produce any document regarding their possession over the land in question. 9. This Court also observes that the Colonization Tehsildar, Kolayat no.4 took objections before the Assistant Commissioner in his reply to the aforementioned application, but the Assistant Commissioner did not consider such objections, and passed the order and decree in favour of the petitioners. This Court further observes that the reference was made by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner after a delay of almost 10 years, which in the present factual matrix, is justified, because as per the settled proposition of law, the issue of delay always depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. This Court further observes that the reference was made by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner after a delay of almost 10 years, which in the present factual matrix, is justified, because as per the settled proposition of law, the issue of delay always depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner had drawn the conclusion regarding khatedari rights in favour of the petitioners without any cogent material and evidence in support thereof, and thus, the said order suffers from grave illegality and irregularity. 10. This Court, therefore, observes that the reference in question was rightly made by the Collector -cum- Deputy Colonisation Commissioner, which in turn was rightly accepted by the learned BoR vide the impugned order, after duly analyzing the material and evidence placed on record before it. 11. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners do not render any assistance to their case. 12. 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 petitioners in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.