ORDER : 1. Though the matter has been listed under the ‘Orders Category’, however, the matter is being heard today itself with the consent of counsel for both the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- (i) The impugned judgment dated 03.12.2020 (Ann.12) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal No. 64/2020, judgment dated 26.11.2019 (Ann.10) passed by learned Land Settlement Officer Cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner in Appeal No. 47/2017 and judgment and decree dated 13.06.2017 (Ann.8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar in Suit No. 36/1999 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar District Churu may kindly be ordered to be decreed. (iii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are brothers and possessing land in Khasra No. 100 admeasuring 50 bighas 6 biswa since before coming into force of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’). The petitioner and the respondent No.4 filed a suit for declaration and correction of record under Sections 88 and 92A of the Act of 1955 stating therein that they are having possession over the land in question which was under the possession of their grand father Bhole Shah since Samwat year 2012 i.e. before the coming into force of the Act of 1955 and since then the possession of plaintiffs is continuing. 4. 4. In Samvat year 2012 i.e. 1955, the Act ot 1955 came into force when the actual possession was with the father of the petitioner and respondent No.4, namely, Shri Gulam Shah and thus he became an absolute khatedar of the land and after the death of the father of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4, the land is in continuous possession of the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 and thus they are the khatedars of the land but being illiterate they had no knowledge of the record of the agricultural land and the land in question was wrongly recorded as government land by the settlement department at the time of settlement proceedings and thus the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 are entitled to get corrected the Revenue record as they are having the continuous possession over the land even before Samvat year 2012. Thereafter the patwari had informed the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 that as per the revenue record they are not having the legal right over the land in question. On 17.05.1999 the Tehsildar refused to correct the Revenue entries therefore the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 filed the suit (Annexure.1) with the prayer that the agricultural land of old khasra No. 242 i.e. new khasra No. 100 admeasuring 50 bighas 6 biswas Rohi Town Sardarshahar is in continuous use of the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 and thus they are legal khatedars of the land. 5. During the pendency of the suit the use of the land has been changed by the District Collector, Churu vide order dated 16.12.2004 and transferred the land to the Municipal Board Sardarshahar and the mutation entries have also been recorded in the name of the Municipal Board Sardarshahar vide mutation No. 645 dated 23.11.2005 therefore the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 filed an amended suit (Annexure-2) before the learned trial court on 10.04.2008 and also amended the prayer to grant permanent injunction. 6. The Naib Tehsildar, Sardarshahar filed a written statement (Annexure-3) to the suit whereby he admitted the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff and the respondent No.4 and their family members are cultivating the land but stated that they are encroachers and are illegally cultivating the land and further averred that the land in question has been set apart by the District Collector, Churu and further transferred the land to Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. 7. The defendant Nos. 7. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein) have also filed the written statement (Annexure-4) wherein it was stated that the land in question has been transferred to the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and mutation entries have been made in the name of Municipal Board Sardarshahar therefore Municipal Board Sardarshahar is absolute owner of the land in question and has also taken the possession of the same with assistance of Tehsildar and police authorities on 08.02.2007 and further stated that petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 are encroachers on the land in question. 8. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit vide order and decree dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-8) on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff and respondent No.4 are encroachers over the land in question. 9. The petitioner-plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.06.2017 passed by the S.D.O., preferred an appeal (Annexure-9) before the Land Settlement officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2019. (Annexure-10). The petitioner-plaintiff, being aggrieved of the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Land Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner, preferred a second appeal (Annexure-11) before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure-12) on the ground that the second appellate court cannot interfere in the second appeal in concurrent finding of the courts below. 10. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the order dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure-12) passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-10) passed by the Land settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner and order and decree dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar, has preferred this writ petition. 11. 10. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the order dated 3.12.2020 (Annexure-12) passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer, order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-10) passed by the Land settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner and order and decree dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar, has preferred this writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff made the following submissions:- (a) that the learned Land Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority has committed an error in dismissing the appeal because the Sub-Divisional Officer has not given thoughtful consideration of the evidence of the parties as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner-plaintiff and has failed to consider the legal aspect of the matter as per the provisions of the Act of 1955 that the petitioner-plaintiff and his forefathers were in continuous possession of the land in question even before coming into force the Act of 1955; (b) that the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar has dismissed the suit in a cursory manner while deciding the issue No.1 on the ground that the land in question is a government land and petitioner-plaintiff is encroacher and the continuous possession of the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be considered and thus the finding of the SDO, Sardarshahar is contrary to the record as well as law because looking to the evidence adduced by the petitioner-plaintiff as well as khasra girdawaris exhibited in the suit, it is clear that the petitioner-plaintiff was having possession over the land in the Samwat year 2012 and was cultivating the same; (c) that the trial court failed to consider the legal propositions of the case as per Section 5(23), 9 and 15 of the Act of 1955. Section 5(23) provides that ‘Khudkasht’ is a person who is cultivating the land and Section 9 of the Act of 1955 provides the rights of ‘Khudkasht’. Thus from the definition of ‘Khudkasht’ and ‘Right of Khudkasht’, it is clear that the petitioner-plaintiff is a khatedar tenant as per Section 15 of the Act of 1955. Moreover the petitioner-plaintiff has proved his case by adducing evidence that at the time of coming into force of the Act of 1955 he was having cultivatory possession over the land but the SDO, RAA and BOR have totally failed to consider this fact while deciding the suit, the first appeal and the second appeal. Moreover the petitioner-plaintiff has proved his case by adducing evidence that at the time of coming into force of the Act of 1955 he was having cultivatory possession over the land but the SDO, RAA and BOR have totally failed to consider this fact while deciding the suit, the first appeal and the second appeal. Sections 5(23), 9 and 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 are reproduced here as under:- 5. Definitions (23) "Khudkasht" shall mean land in any part of the State cultivated personally by in estate holder and shall include (i) land recorded as Khudkasht, Sir, Havala, Niji-jot, Gharkhed in settlement records at the commencement of this Act in accordance with law in force at the time when such record was made, and (ii) land allotted after such commencement as Khudkasht under any law for the time-being. in force in any part of the State. 9. Khudkasht right— 'Khudkasht right' means the rights conferred on holders of Khudkasht by this Act and by6 [any other law for the time being in force in the whole or any part of the State]. 15. in force in any part of the State. 9. Khudkasht right— 'Khudkasht right' means the rights conferred on holders of Khudkasht by this Act and by6 [any other law for the time being in force in the whole or any part of the State]. 15. Khatedar tenants— (1) Subject to the provisions of section 16 and clause (d) of Subsection (1) of section 180 every person who, at the commencement of this Act, is a tenant of land otherwise than as a subtenant or a tenant of Khudkasht or who is, after the commencement of this Act, admitted as a tenant otherwise than a subtenant or tenant of Khudkasht or an allottee of land under, and in accordance with, rules made under section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956) or who acquires Khatedari rights in accordance with provisions of this Act or of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act, 1952 (Rajasthan Act VI of 1952) or of any other law for the time (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) xxxxxx From a bare perusal of above mentioned provisions it is clear that every person, having possession over khudkasht land, have the khatedari rights and the Tehsildar (Revenue), Sardarshahar has admitted in his reply that as per the revenue record the father of the petitioner-plaintiff was cultivating the land since long time; and (d) that the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar has decided the Issue Numbers 2,3,4,5,6 against the petitioner-plaintiff because during the pendency of the suit the District Collector, Churu has changed the land use and allotted the same to the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as the suit has been filed in the year 1999 and land use has been changed on 16.12.2004 and mutation entries have been made on 23.11.2005 therefore only on the basis of conversion of land and transfer of the land in the name of Municipal Board the right of the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be curtailed and the SDO, Sardarshahar so also the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the Board of Revenue Ajmer have totally failed to consider the material available on record while dismissing the suit. 12. 12. In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepa v/s State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in (1996) 1 SCC 612 and further placed reliance on the judgments of this Hon’ble court in the case of LRs. of Netram and another vs. Board of Revenue and others. (SBCWP No. 3118/1990); Mota Ram through Lrs v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.3474/2002); Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Legal Representatives Of Tikam Das (SBCWP NO.3618/2011); State of Rajasthan Vs. Girdhari Ram & ors. (SBCWP NO. 4208/2006) and RIICO Vs. LRs of Prem Kishan & Ors. (D.B.SAW No.1081/2015). 13. Per Contra Learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions:- (a) that all the three courts of SDO, RAA, BOR have concurrently found that petitioner is an encroacher upon the land in dispute which was allotted in favour of the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar vide order dated 16.12.2004 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments categorically held that High Court should refrain from interfering in the concurrent finding of the fact. Moreover, it is an admitted case that petitioner is an encroacher upon the land in dispute and that he is having no such possession over the land in dispute; (b) that the land in dispute belongs to the Municipal Board Sardarshahar which was allotted by the District Collector, Churu vide order dated 16.12.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff challenged that order by way of filing a suit for declaration, correction in the revenue entries and for permanent injunction before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sardarshahar who dismissed the suit vide order dated 13.06.2017. Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2019 by the RAA, Bikaner. After dismissal of the appeal by the RAA, Bikaner, for removal of the encroachment of the petitioner from the land in dispute, a committee was constituted vide order dated 30.01.2020 by the respondents and further a letter was sent to the SDO, Sardarshahar by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar for appointing the Mauka Magistrate and to provide police assistance. After dismissal of the appeal by the RAA, Bikaner, for removal of the encroachment of the petitioner from the land in dispute, a committee was constituted vide order dated 30.01.2020 by the respondents and further a letter was sent to the SDO, Sardarshahar by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sardarshahar for appointing the Mauka Magistrate and to provide police assistance. After various communications for providing police assistance for removal of encroachment as there was an apprehension of violence at the site, finally on 15.02.2020 with the help of police and the team constituted by the Executive Officer, land in question was released from the encroachment and Urban Solid Waste has been dumped with the help of tractor trolleys on the land in question which has been earmarked for the dumping site of the Urban Solid Waste in view of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application no. 606/2018 in Suo-Moto petition for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 by which directions were issued to all the Chief Secretaries of the State for compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016; (c) that for the compliance of the order passed by the National Green Tribunal, E-tender was issued on 16.07.2020 for construction of the GSB Road and construction of Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Station at trenching ground Sardarshahar, and work order was issued. Thereafter when the petitioner-plaintiff tried to obstruct the work for construction of the road and the work for which the tender was issued, the Executive Officer again requested the SDO, Sardarshahar for providing the police assistance vide letter dated 23.09.2020 and ultimately the road was constructed. (d) The petitioner-plaintiff has wrongly stated the facts in writ petition as well as in the stay petition that he is having possession over the land in question, whereas, the land was vacant and put to use for dumping site of solid waste and for construction of the treatment of solid waste. The petitioner-plaintiff was not in continuous possession of the said land and that predecessors of the petitioner-plaintiff were not in possession prior to coming into force of the Act of 1955. The petitioner-plaintiff was not in continuous possession of the said land and that predecessors of the petitioner-plaintiff were not in possession prior to coming into force of the Act of 1955. The land in question was entered in the name of Municipal Board vide order dated 16.12.2004 and thereafter in the year 2007 the petitioner-plaintiff encroached over the land in dispute and the encroachment was removed with the help of police; (e) that the Board of Revenue, in paragraph No. 8 of the order, categorically held that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to prove his possession by any cogent documentary evidence and moreover, proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 were also initiated against the petitioner-plaintiff declaring him an encroacher and similarly, the RAA, Bikaner categorically recorded the finding that the petitioner plaintiff has produced exhibit 1 to 6, which show different measurements of the land and the documents belong to the Sivay Chak Land. The SDO, Sardarshahar categorically found that the petitioner-plaintiff was ousted from the land in dispute as the land was allotted to the Municipal Board, Sardarshahar and therefore the petitioner-plaintiff should have challenged the order of the allotment before the competent authority however after the dispossession he has again encroached the land in dispute; and (f) the petitioner-plaintiff has tried to misinterpret the definition of "Khudkast" as envisaged under Section 5 (23) and the "Khudkast rights” as envisaged under section 9 of the Act of 1955 and it is an admitted fact that petitioner-plaintiff or his predecessor has never remained in possession of the land in dispute. 14. In support of his submissions Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the Judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation ltd. Vs. Legal Representatives Of Tikam Das (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3618/11). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “10. Indisputably, the land in question was in cultivatory possession of the respondents before coming into force of the Act and therefore, they were entitled to be declared as khatedar tenant as per provisions of Section 15 of the Act. It is also not disputed that vide order dated 28.11.1956 issued by the SDO, Jodhpur, the respondents were granted khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act. It is also not disputed that vide order dated 28.11.1956 issued by the SDO, Jodhpur, the respondents were granted khatedari rights under Section 15 of the Act. It is a matter of record that order dated 9.6.1970 and consequent orders of Tehsildar, Jodhpur dated 24.12.1970, cancelling the patta of the land in question issued in favour of the respondents were passed without following the due process of law and for this reason, the orders dated 26.4.1974 and 18.3.1989, transferring the land in favour of RIICO and UIT were reviewed and cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 21.9.2004. It is pertinent to note that order dated 28.5.1970 cancelling the pattas of the respondents was based on order of Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 13.8.1957, pertains to cancellation of the patta issued in respect of pasture land whereas, the land in question was never reserved as pasture land. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Board of Revenue after consideration of the material on record in its entirety and objectivity, has arrived at a categorical finding the khatedari rights conferred upon the respondents as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, was just and proper. In view of the matter, the land belonging to the khatedar tenant could not have been declared sivay chak by way of administrative order, which was apparently passed on the basis of the erroneous facts. Merely because, the RIICO was put into possession of the land in question on the strength of an allotment order issued acting without jurisdiction, which now stands set aside in accordance with law, no right is created in favour of the RIICO, over the land in question.” 15. Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance on the Judgments passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority v/s Deendayal Purohit and Ors., (SBCWP 8678/2021). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “4.The State through Tehsildar submitted the written statement and denied the averments as stated in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. However, in the written statement the petitioner-State has admitted that the plaintiffs are agriculturists and are in cultivatory possession of the land in question. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “4.The State through Tehsildar submitted the written statement and denied the averments as stated in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. However, in the written statement the petitioner-State has admitted that the plaintiffs are agriculturists and are in cultivatory possession of the land in question. It was further stated in the written statement that during the settlement proceedings, vide order dated 3.2.1960 in MisalNo.1476/1960, the land was recorded as Siwai Chak and the land measuring 56 Bigha and 14 Biswa has been allotted to the former Jagirdars. It was further stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in question as tress-passers and they cannot claim declaration as khatedars of the land in question. 27. In view of the discussion made herein above, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below do not suffer from any infirmity as the same have been recorded after correct appreciation of evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the courts below which warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no force in these writ petitions. The same are, therefore, dismissed.” 16. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties; perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 17. This Court observes that the Board of Revenue Ajmer vide its order dated 03.12.2020 observed that after perusal of the material available on record there is no strong or documentary evidence produced by the petitioner-plaintiff in order to prove that the petitioner-plaintiff’s ancestors were having khatedari rights and that the petitioner-plaintiff was having the khatedari rights even before coming into force of the Act of 1955. Moreover, the petitioner-plaintiff has placed on record only the Khasra Girdawaris and just on the basis of Khasra Girdawari khatedari rights of the agriculturist or the petitioner-plaintiff for that matter cannot be determined. Moreover, the petitioner-plaintiff has placed on record only the Khasra Girdawaris and just on the basis of Khasra Girdawari khatedari rights of the agriculturist or the petitioner-plaintiff for that matter cannot be determined. Furthermore, proceedings against the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 has been initiated and illegal possession of the petitioner-plaintiff has been removed time and again from the land in question thus the petitioner-palintiff is repeatedly encroaching upon the land in question and, therefore, cannot be given the status of a Khatedar. The Board of Revenue further observed that the SDO, Sardarshahar, while deciding the suit perused the pleadings of both the parties and framed the issues and dealt with every issue in detail along with all the documentary and oral evidence and thereafter rightly passed the order dated 30.06.2017 (Annex.8) and thus there is no requirement of the second appellate court to interfere with the order of the SDO, Sardarshahar and RAA, Bikaner wherein there is no illegality or infirmity with the orders passed by them. 18. This court further finds that the authorities below have considered all the documents which petitioner-plaintiff has exhibited and placed reliance upon, which proves that the land in question is a Sivay Chak Land and has been rightly entered in the name of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar by the order of the District Collector, Churu as per the directions of the State Government. The petitioner-plaintiff has no documentary evidence to prove his case that the petitioner-plaintiff has khatedari rights on the land in question. Moreover the land in question has been put to use for a dumping site of Urban Solid Waste for compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. Therefore the land in question is being used for public purposes and the petitioner-plaintiff holds no title over it. 19. In view of the above, this Court finds that all the authorities below have concurrently observed that the land in question is a Sivay Chak Land and has been rightly entered in the name of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar by the District Collector, Churu and the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to prove that he was having khatedari rights over the land in question. 20. It is well settled proposition of law that where there are concurrent finding of facts, this Court should not interfere with the same unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality. 20. It is well settled proposition of law that where there are concurrent finding of facts, this Court should not interfere with the same unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality. In the case in hand, no irregularity or illegality whatsoever has been proved by the petitioner-plaintiff. 21. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and thus is dismissed. 22. The Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.