ORDER : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) : 1. The present Special Appeals have been filed by the appellant laying challenge to the impugned orders dated 7th September 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7188/2021 whereby the respondents herein have been declared as the Khatedars of lands situated at village Savina, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur falling in khasras no. 587 and 548 (new khasras no. 1631 and 1632). 2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the land falling in khasra no.587 (new khasra no. 1632) measuring 17.01 bighas located at village Savina, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur came to be allotted to the appellant- Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the UIT’) by the Revenue Authorities treating the nature of the land to be Bilanam. The private respondents being aggrieved by recording of the abovementioned piece of land in the name of the UIT preferred two separate suits in the Court of Sub-Division Officer, Girwa, District Udaipur (SDM) for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 188, 88, 63(1)(4) & 92-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In the revenue suit filed by the private respondents it was averred that as per the revenue records, their ancestor Bheru Singh was the owner of 19.1 bighas of land at village Savina falling under khasras no.587 and 548. The land in question was duly recorded in the name of Bheru Singh and thereafter to his successors in the revenue records, however, during the settlement proceedings the khasras no.548 and 587 were converted into new khasras no.1631 and 1632. Due to inadvertence of the Revenue Authorities, at the time of conversion of the khasra no.548 into new khasra no.1632, out of 2 bighas (0.4320 hectre) land of the private respondents only 0.1650 hectre land got recorded in their names. Similarly, the land measuring 17.01 bighas falling under old khasra no.587 was not recorded in their names but the same was recorded as Bilanam and thereafter allotted to the appellant- UIT. 3. The SDM during the pendency of the revenue suits suo-moto called for the record from the Tehsildar concerned and directed him to submit a factual report regarding conversion of all the khasras into new khasras. 3. The SDM during the pendency of the revenue suits suo-moto called for the record from the Tehsildar concerned and directed him to submit a factual report regarding conversion of all the khasras into new khasras. The Tehsildar concerned in compliance of the directions so issued by the SDM submitted a detailed report wherein it was indicated that some part of the khatedari land of private respondents has been recorded in the revenue record as Bilanam. The revenue suits filed by the private respondents thus came to be dismissed by the SDM vide order dated 02.05.2017 with observations recorded inter alia that the lands falling in khasras no.1631 and 1632 contained large chunks of land and therefore it could be ascertained on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar dated 10.03.2017 as to which part of the khatedari land of the private respondents has been wrongly entered as Bilanam during the settlement proceedings. 4. The order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the SDM came to be challenged by the private respondents in two separate appeals before the Land Settlement Officer cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur (RAA). After hearing both the parties vide order dated 19.06.2017, the learned RAA allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2017 passed by the SDM and remanded the matter back to SDM with a direction to conduct an inquiry to find out as to whether the land belonging to the private respondents falling under khasras no.1631 and 1632 has been recorded in some other khasras or not. The SDM was further directed to pass a fresh order in matter. 5. The private respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the RAA preferred two separate appeals before the Board of Revenue (BOR). The BOR after hearing the parties and perusing the records of the appeals reached to a definite conclusion that the private respondents were having khatedari rights over land falling in khasras no.587 and 548 situated at village Savina, Tehsil Girwa. The Revenue Authorities at the time of settlement proceedings while converting the khasras no.548 and 587 into new khasras no.1631 and 1632 were required to maintain the same entries in the revenue records and ought not to have change the entries by mentioning it as Bilanam at the time of the settlement. The Revenue Authorities at the time of settlement proceedings while converting the khasras no.548 and 587 into new khasras no.1631 and 1632 were required to maintain the same entries in the revenue records and ought not to have change the entries by mentioning it as Bilanam at the time of the settlement. In other words, khatedari rights of private respondents should not have been interfered by the Revenue Authorities. The BOR vide its order/judgment dated 10.03.2021 was pleased to allow the appeals no.4649/2017 and 4651/2017 filed on behalf of the private respondents. The private respondents were declared as khatedars of the lands for which initially they had filed the revenue suits. Further, the appellant- UIT was restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering in peaceful possession and use of the land by the private respondents. 6. In the present proceeding, the learned counsel for the appellant- UIT reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel submitted that BOR has passed its judgment mainly relying upon the report filed by the Tehsildar before SDM, though there was no material available on record to indicate that the Bilanam land which was allotted to the UIT by the Revenue Authorities was khatedari land of the private respondents. Learned counsel submitted that the BOR has failed to appreciate the correct position of fact and law in its judgment and therefore the same should not have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the BOR has passed the order dated 10.03.2021 after fully appreciating the facts and law involved in the case. Learned counsel submitted that no errors of law or fact have been committed by BOR in considering the report of Tehsildar submitted before the SDM during suit proceedings which clearly indicates that some khatedari lands of the private respondents have been recorded in the revenue records as Bilanam. Learned counsel submitted that since there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the case as well as in the order of the BOR, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed by BOR while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the materials available on record. 9. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellant- UIT under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, was pleased to observe as under: “…Form perusal of the aforesaid report, it is clear that the Tehsildar concerned in his report has concluded that old land of Khasra Nos.548 and 587 is fixed in new Khasra Nos.1631 and 1632. It is also concluded by the Tehsildar that the lands of Khasra Nos.548 and 587 were recorded in the name of respondents in the revenue record but while fixing the same in new khasra number in settlement operation, 17.01 Bighas of land has been recorded as Bilanam and allotted to the petitioner-UIT. The Tehsildar has further concluded that two bighas of land of Khasra No.548 was recorded in the name of the respondents, however, in the settlement, the said land is fixed in new Khasra No.1623 but only 0.1650 hectares of the land is recorded in the name of the respondents and 0.2670 hectares of the land has not been recorded in their names. As a matter of fact, the respondents have filed the revenue suits only raising the grievance that during new settlement, their lands ad measuring 17.01 bighas has wrongly been recorded as Bilanam and 0.2670 hectares of the land has been less recorded in their names. Form the report of the Tehsildar, it can be gathered that the contention raised by the private respondents in the revenue suits have been fully accepted. The petitioner-UIT has failed to counter the said factual position before the SDM as well as before both the appellate courts by producing any cogent, documentary or ocular evidence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that finding of fact recorded by both the appellate courts, on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, is not liable to be interfered with. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that finding of fact recorded by both the appellate courts, on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, is not liable to be interfered with. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner–UIT that the BOR has erred in invoking the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same is having no merits and is liable to be rejected because the RAA while relying on the report of the Tehsildar has given a specific finding that the lands of private respondents have wrongly been recorded as Bilanam and has also been less recorded during the settlement operations but remanded the matter to the SDM with the direction to ascertain whether the land of Khasra No.587/1=is fixed in some other Khasra numbers or not. It is noticed that the report of the Tehsildar is exhaustive wherein he has clarified that the land of old Khasra Nos.548 and 587 is fixed in the new Khasra Nos.1631 and 1632 only, then there was no occasion for the RAA to ask the SDM to further conduct an enquiry in the matter. Once the appellate court had concluded that the claim of the respondents is proved, it ought to have passed the consequential order as per the reliefs claimed in the revenue suits by the respondents. Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC empower an appellate court to pass any decree or to make any order which ought to have been passed or made as the case may require though the parties have not filed any appeal or cross objection. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pralhad and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 458 , while defining the scope of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC has observed as under: “18. The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. The provision of Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass any Order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression 'Order ought to have been made' would obviously mean an Order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying' the court may pass such further or other Order as the case may require.' This expression 'case' would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. 19. In fact, the ambit of this provision has come up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (CPC, 15th Edition, pg.2647) 12 observed that this Rule is modelled on Order 59, Rule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England, and Mulla further opined that the purpose of this rule is to do complete justice between the parties.” As observed earlier, once the RAA has concluded that the claim of the private respondents raised in the revenue suits has been proved from the report of Tehsildar, the RAA ought to have passed a decree declaring the respondents as Khatedar for the land in question and to restrain the UIT from interfering in the rights of the respondents, however, the RAA has failed to do so and then the BOR has not committed any illegality in exercising the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and in declaring the respondents as Khatedar of the land and to restrain the petitioner–UIT from interfering in their rights. It is noticed that the petitioner-UIT did not raise any objection regarding the report of the Tehsildar before the SDM and in such circumstances, now it is not open for the petitioner-UIT to contend that the BOR as well as RAA have wrongly placed reliance on the report of the Tehsildar as the same was not prepared in the presence of any representative of the petitioner-UIT. So far as other contention of the petitioner-UIT that the respondents before filing the revenue suits had not served the notice upon the UIT under Section 80(2) CPC is concerned, it is noticed that the copy of the revenue suit is filed along with preliminary reply filed on behalf of the respondent in SBCWP No.7196/2021 and it is evident that the respondents have moved two applications seeking exemption from service of notice upon the petitioner-UIT under Section 80(2) CPC and Section 98(4) of the UIT Act, though it is not clear that whether such exemption was granted by the SDM or not, however, it is also true that no such issue has been framed by the SDM in the revenue suits in respect of non-compliance of notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 98 of the UIT Act. So far as other contention of the petitioner to the effect that the Devasthan Department was not authorized under any law to allot the land belonging to a deity is concerned, from the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner-UIT in the revenue suit No.28/12,copy of which is annexed with the preliminary reply of the respondents in SBCWP No.7196/2021, no such contention has been raised by the petitioner-UIT in its reply to the revenue suit and obviously no such issue was framed by the SDM. It is claimed by the petitioner-UIT that the request made on behalf of it before the BOR to release the matter from the Bench, which had passed the order, has illegally been rejected. This Court is of the opinion that simply because the Bench of BOR has refused to release the matter from part heard, the same cannot be a ground of setting aside the impugned judgments. This Court is of the opinion that simply because the Bench of BOR has refused to release the matter from part heard, the same cannot be a ground of setting aside the impugned judgments. So far as another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT that one of the Members of Division Bench of the BOR, which passed the impugned judgment, was arrested and charge-sheeted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in some other case is concerned, simply because one of the Members of the BOR, which passed the impugned judgment, was arrested and charge-sheeted in some other case by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with until and unless, some evidence is available on record that in the present matter, the said member has also received some illegal gratification from any of the party. Apart from that, the impugned judgments have been delivered by a Division Bench of BOR headed by its Chairman and it is not alleged by the petitioner-UIT that the Chairman of BOR, who headed the Bench was also indulged in corrupt practice. In view of the above observations, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, there is no force in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed...” 10. Before proceeding further the clauses no.6 to 10 of the report of the Tehsildar dated 10.03.2017 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: English Translation: “6. That as per above, in old Arazi No. 587 (08 bigha 16 biswa + 08 bigha 05 biswa), total 17 bigha 01 biswa area which was registered in the name of the applicants in the old records, after the new settlement (measurement), the entire area was recorded as bilanam instead of being registered in the name of the applicants. 7. That as per above, in comparison to the old accounts of the applicants, 0.2670 hectare area of old Arazi No. 548 was recorded less and 17 bigha 01 biswa (3.6838 hectare) of old Arazi No. 587 was recorded as bilanam in the new settlement (measurement). 8. 7. That as per above, in comparison to the old accounts of the applicants, 0.2670 hectare area of old Arazi No. 548 was recorded less and 17 bigha 01 biswa (3.6838 hectare) of old Arazi No. 587 was recorded as bilanam in the new settlement (measurement). 8. That by superimposing the old map (black line) and the recent new map (red line) on the same scale and comparing both the maps, the following situation was found:- (A) In the matching area, the recent Arazi number 1631 has been shown to be made from the old Arazi number 548, whereas it includes 0.6530 hectare of old Arazi number 548 and 1.9010 hectare of old Arazi number 587. (B) In the matching area, the recent Arazi number 1632 has been shown to be made from the old Arazi number 548. Whereas it includes 1.7050 hectare of old Arazi number 548 and 2.6820 hectare of old Arazi number 587 and 1.2950 hectare of old Arazi number 548. (C) The area of former Arazi No. 548 is included in the entire area of present Arazi No. 1616 to 1624 and partial area of Arazi No. 1625, 1626 and 1627, out of which Arazi No. 1623 is registered in the name of the applicants. 9. That on the basis of the above facts, it is clear that the matching area of present Arazi No. 1631 and 1632 made by the Settlement Department is erroneous. Present Arazi No. 1631 is not made only from former Arazi No. 548, the area of former Arazi No. 587 is also included in it. Similarly, present Arazi No. 1632 is not made only from former Arazi No. 548, the area of former Arazi No. 587 and 548 is also included in it. 10. That the disputed land plot number 1631 and 1632 were earlier registered in bilanam which were later registered in the name of UIT, Udaipur and the Jamabandi of the present new revenue village Nela from Samvat 2070 to 2073 is also registered in the name of UIT, Udaipur. 10. That the disputed land plot number 1631 and 1632 were earlier registered in bilanam which were later registered in the name of UIT, Udaipur and the Jamabandi of the present new revenue village Nela from Samvat 2070 to 2073 is also registered in the name of UIT, Udaipur. Thus, it is clear from the above facts that the matching of area of present Arazi No. 1631 and 1632 of Village Savina (Nela) is erroneous and the area of 0.2670 hectare which is less after registration of 0.1650 hectare in present Arazi No. 1623 in the name of applicants has been included in the present Arazi numbers from the previous Arazi No. 548 situated near the said Arazi No. 1623 and the area of former Arazi No. 587 (08 bigha 16 biswa + 08 bigha 5 biswa total area 17 bigha 01 biswa) which was registered in the name of applicants in the previous records is evident to be included in present Arazi No. 1631 and 1632." 11. In the present case, it clearly emerges from the perusal of the orders passed by the various Revenue Authorities and the report of the Tehsildar dated 10.03.2017 that 19.1 bighas of land at village Savina falling under khasras no.587 and 548 was recorded in the name of the private respondents’ ancestor Behru Singh in the revenue records. However, during settlement proceedings some part of the khatedari land of private respondents came to be recorded as Bilanam. The record of the case further indicates that before changing classification of land to Bilanam, no information or an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the private respondents. Further, there is no document available on record to suggest that at the time of settlement or after settlement in the land records any effort was made by the Revenue Authorities to correct the aforesaid mistake committed by them during settlement. Though there is a presumption of correctness attached to the latest revenue entries but such presumption is rebuttable and, as the findings of the Revenue Authorities establish that change in revenue entries was made without any basis and unauthorisedly. Moreover, in the present case earlier revenue entries were changed and such change was made without notice to the private respondents. 12. Moreover, in the present case earlier revenue entries were changed and such change was made without notice to the private respondents. 12. Manifestly thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the present Special Appeals are dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.