ORDER : 1. This is the case of reversal of judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in Appeal No.20/2007, in exercise of its jurisdiction as First Appellate Authority, by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal/TA/903/2010/Jaipur vide its judgment dated 18 th July, 2012, which has been impugned by petitioners in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. The revenue suit, filed by petitioners for declaring resumption of their Khatedari rights and protection of cultivatory possession, was decreed by Revenue Appellate Authority but came to be dismissed, as a result of impugned judgment, passed by Board of Revenue. 2. The relevant facts, in nutshell, recapitulated from the record are that:- 2.1 petitioners instituted a revenue suit in the month of February, 1999 for declaration of their Khatedari rights and protection of their cultivatory possession over the land of Khasra No.826/866 measuring 1.20 hectare situated at village Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2.2 The revenue suit was filed under the provision of Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the RTA, 1955”), against the Government of Rajasthan through concerned Tehsildar and Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur stating inter alia that the land in question has erroneously been recorded as sewai chak (Government land) in the name of Jaipur Development Authority (for short ”the JDA”) at the time of settlement in samvat – 2015 whereas the land in question was in the khatedari of their predecessors since time of their grandfather namely Jeevan alias Jeeva son of Bakhsha and same has been in continuous and uninterrupted cultivatory possession of petitioners. 2.3 It was inter-alia pleaded that khasra No. 826/866 ment from khasra No. 436 (5 bigha) which was part of khasra no 339/414 measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa; at the time of settlement proceedings in Samvat–2015, land of khasra No. 339/414 came to be segregated in several parts including khasra no. 2.3 It was inter-alia pleaded that khasra No. 826/866 ment from khasra No. 436 (5 bigha) which was part of khasra no 339/414 measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa; at the time of settlement proceedings in Samvat–2015, land of khasra No. 339/414 came to be segregated in several parts including khasra no. 436, 436/2, 438 and although the land of 438 (67 bigha 11 biswa) and land of khasra No. 436/2 (5 bigha) came to be recorded in the name of father of petitioners namely Moharu son of Jeevan but land of khasra No. 436, under erroneous pretext came to be entered as sewai chak (government land) in the name of JDA which is absolutely illegal and unauthorized mutation entry since it is well established legal position that in the settlement proceeding, Settlement Officer is not authorized to confer khatedari rights nor on account of erroneous entry during the settlement proceedings in the revenue record, khatedari rights of petitioners in respect of land of khasra No. 436 could be adversely affected more so when petitioners, since time of their grandfather namely Jeevan have been in continuous and uninterrupted cultivatory possession of such land. 2.4 Therefore, petitioners sought protection of their cultivatory possession by declaring the land in question Khatedari of petitioners, which was in fact already vested to petitioners since time of their grandfather being recorded Khatedar of the land of khasra No.339/414 in the revenue record of Jamabandi. 3. The Government of Rajasthan, in its written statement, neither questioned the hierarchy of petitioners being descendants of late Jeevan S/o Bakhsa, in whose name the land of Khasra No.339/414 (measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa) along with other lands were recorded in the revenue record of Chakbandi from Samvat-1987 to 2003 nor disputed the cultivatory possession of petitioners, rather the State Government categorically stated that prior to settlement of Samvat-2015, land of Khasra No.436 (5 bigha) was not recorded as Sewai Chak (government land). 4. In the written statement submitted by the JDA, resort of Section 54 of the JDA Act, 1981 was taken, stating inter alia that the land in question Khasra No.826/866 is recorded in the revenue record as government land in the name of JDA, hence, petitioners do not have any concern/ nexus with such land. 4. In the written statement submitted by the JDA, resort of Section 54 of the JDA Act, 1981 was taken, stating inter alia that the land in question Khasra No.826/866 is recorded in the revenue record as government land in the name of JDA, hence, petitioners do not have any concern/ nexus with such land. Although, it is noteworthy that JDA did not avert a single word explaining the genesis/ nucleus or foundation to how the land in question came to be recorded as government land. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanganer (for short “the SDO”), on the basis of rival pleadings of both parties framed as many as four issues, including the issue of relief, which are reproduced in the judgment dated 13.11.2006 passed by the SDO, hence need not to be reiterated hereunder: 5.1 The clinching issue, in the present revenue suit was that as to whether land of Khasra No.826/866 (which indisputably ment from Khasra No.436) was part and parcel of the land of Khasra No.339/413 (measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa) which was admittedly recorded in the revenue record of Chakbandi for Samvat-1987- 2003 in the name of Jeevan son of Bakhsa, who happens to be the grandfather of petitioners. 5.2 Although the other issues, in respect of the facts as to whether petitioners are descendants of late Jeevan and whether are in cultivatory possession of the land in question, were also framed but these issues finally decided in favour of petitioners and the Board of Revenue acknowledged the status of petitioners being grandson of late Jeevan S/o Bakhsa and in physical possession of land in question. 5.3 Both parties were given opportunity to adduce their documentary and oral evidence. 5.4 Petitioners produced four witness, including Prakash Chand Jain, Office Kanoongo (PW-3) and also produced documents Exhibit P1 to P29. 5.5 The Government of Rajasthan did not produce any evidence and from side of JDA, only statements of one witness Tehsildar- Ramesh Chand Jain were got recorded and no document was produced. 6. The Court of SDO dismissed the revenue suit vide its judgment dated 13.11.2006 under an erroneous fact finding that petitioners could not establish themselves to be descendants of Jeevan son of Bakhsa nor could establish their cultivatory possession. 6. The Court of SDO dismissed the revenue suit vide its judgment dated 13.11.2006 under an erroneous fact finding that petitioners could not establish themselves to be descendants of Jeevan son of Bakhsa nor could establish their cultivatory possession. In addition, it was also observed by the SDO that the milan chhetraphal to show that the land of Khasra No.826/866 was part and parcel of the land of Khasra No.339/414 has also not been produced by petitioners. The judgment of SDO is enclosed as Annexure-4. 7. Petitioners assailed the judgment passed by the SDO dated 13.11.2006 by means of filing appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur (for short “the RAA”). The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur in exercise of its jurisdiction as first appellate authority, re- analysed and re-evaluated the factual and legal aspects of the matter and by giving a thoughtful consideration and discussing the evidence on record extensively, decided each and every issue independently & separately and finally, vide its judgment dated14.10.2009 set aside the judgment dated 13.11.2006 and decreed the petitioners suit in their favour. 8. There-against, the JDA preferred second appeal under Section 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, in slipshod manner, quashed the well reasoned judgment of RAA dated 14.10.2009 fundamentally for the reason that the milan chhetraphal of Khasra No.339/414 has not been produced by petitioners to establish that the land of Khasra No.826/866 (old Khasra No.436) ment from such Khasra. Though the Board of Revenue in its judgment dated 18.07.2012 affirmed the fact findings in respect of cultivatory possession of petitioners over the land in question as also their status as descendants of late Jeevan but the Board of Revenue by its own, assumed the possession of petitioners as trespassers which is per-se perverse finding. 9. The judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, quashing the judgment of RAA dated 14.10.2009, has been questioned by petitioners in the instant writ petition. 10. 9. The judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, quashing the judgment of RAA dated 14.10.2009, has been questioned by petitioners in the instant writ petition. 10. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners vehementally argued that the Board of Revenue failed to consider that the document of milan chhetraphal after settlement proceedings in Samvat-2015, for the land in question situated at village Vidhani Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, was not prepared by the Settlement Department and such fact stands proved by the document exhibit P9, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority considered the other evidence to examine the issue that the land of Khasra No.826/866, indeed ment from the land of Khasra No.339/414. 10.1 It has further been argued that the Board of Revenue committed jurisdictional error in circumventing the other evidence including the statements of Office Kanoongo PW3 and the evaluation of Trace Revenue Maps and the factual analysis made by the Revenue Appellate Authority to hold as land of Khasra No.826/866 measuring 1.20 hectare indeed belongs to petitioners and was erroneously recorded as government land whereas prior to settlement of Samvat-2015 same was part and parcel of the land of Khasra No.339/414 (23 bigha 8 biswa), which was recorded in the revenue record of Chakbandi in the name of petitioners’ grandfather namely Jeevan @ Jeeva son of Bakhsa as per exhibit- P7. 10.2 It is urged that the Board of Revenue, unnecessarily, extended extraneous weight to the fact of non-production of milan chhetraphal, which is erroneous approach in context to the factual matrix of present case, since milan chhetraphal was not prepared at all and it is not a case of concealment or deliberate non- production of document by the petitioners but other alternative best available evidence was produced by the petitioners, which has not been rebutted by the JDA. 10.3 It has also been argued that where the Government of Rajasthan has neither disputed the Khatedari of grandfather of petitioners as also has not questioned the possession of petitioners over the land in question, rather admitted the fact that land of Khasra No.436 (measuring 5 bigha, which later on converted into Khasra No.826/866 in the subsequent settlement proceedings) was not recorded as government land prior to the settlement of Samvat 2015; the JDA merely took resort of Section54 of JDA Act, to draw an assumption that since the land in question is recorded as government land in the name of JDA in the revenue record, therefore petitioners have no concern with the land in question. 10.4 Indeed, the JDA miserably failed to establish the foundation and genesis as to how, when and in what manner, the land in question came to be the land of JDA being government land. 10.5 More so, it has also been strenuously urged that when the cultivatory possession of petitioners over such land since time of their forefathers have been found established by the documents of Khasra ‘Parivartanshil’ of Samvat-2023, 2025 and 2032 and 2033, the presumption in favour of JDA, on the basis of Section 54 of JDA Act, does not sustain. 10.6 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue committed perversity in observing the cultivatory possession of petitioners as trespassers whereas same was not even pleaded by the JDA rather JDA claimed the land in question, in its own possession. Thus, the findings of Board of Revenue, in respect of treating the possession of petitioners as trespassers, are emphatically erroneous and perverse and Board of Revenue committed manifest illegality, jurisdictional error in quashing the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 10.7 It has lastly been prayed that the judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed by this Court in order to secure ends of justice so as to resulting restoration of the judgment passed by the RAA dated 14.10.2009. 11. Per contra, the Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of JDA have supported the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. 11. Per contra, the Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of JDA have supported the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respective parties and perused the record available before this Court including the impugned judgment. 13. At the outset, petitioners claimed their khatedari rights over the land in question through their grandfather Jeevan @ Jeeva son of Bakhsa in whose name, the land of Khasra No.339/414 (measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa) along with other lands of Khasra Nos.16, 86, 168, 169, 197, 203, 204, 209, 211, 212, 215, 219, 256, 314/393, 314/396, 339/414, 337/422 total measuring 43 bigha 17 biswa situated at village Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, were recorded in the revenue record of Chakbandi for Samvat-1987 to 2003, which was placed on record as Exhibit P1 in evidence of petitioners-plaintiffs before the court of SDO, Sanganer. This document is undisputed and unquestioned. 14. This is also an undisputed fact that prior to the settlement proceedings commenced in Samvat-2015 (year 1958), Sh. Jeevan son of Bakhsa was a recorded Khatedar and in cultivatory possession over the land of Khasra No.339/414 measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa. 15. The fact has also been established and the fact findings up to the Board of Revenue have come on record that out of land of Khasra No.339/414, after the settlement proceedings in Samvat-2015, land of Khasra No.438 measuring 7 bigha 11 biswa and land of Khasra NO.436/2 measuring 5 bigha came to be recorded in the Khatedari of Moharu who was son of Jeevan and father of petitioners and both these Khasra Nos.438 and 436/2 are indisputably part and parcel of the land of Khasra No.339/414 ment therefrom and have been in continuous cultivatory possession of petitioners. 16. 16. It is noteworthy that the factum of status of petitioners, being descendants of Jeevan son of Bakhsa, also stands established on record on appreciation of documents Exhibit P1, Exhibit P5 and Exhibit P6 as held and observed by the RAA and such fact findings, recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, have also been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in the judgment impugned dated 18.07.2012, thus this factum also does not warrant any further discussion & now not under question in this writ petition. 17. As far as possession of petitioners over the land in question is concerned, though the Court of SDO disbelieved the factum of possession in favour of petitioners but such observations were made by the SDO superficially and without proper appreciation of the documents of Khasra ‘Parivartanshil’ for Samvat-2023, 2025, 2032, 2033 etc. produced by petitioners in their evidence as Exhibit 12. Through these documents coupled with oral evidence of petitioners (PW-1 to PW-4) it stands proved that different type of crops viz. Rabi and Kharif, were sown by petitioners over their recorded Khatedari land along with the land in question of Khasra No.826/866 (old Khasra No.436). 17.1 The Revenue Appellate Authority, after due analysis of documents of Khasra ‘Parivartanshil’ and on appreciation of other oral evidence clearly held and observed that since the land in question was recorded as government land, no Khasra Girdawari is prepared for such nature of land but yearly Khasra ‘Parivartanshil’ has been prepared by the Goverment for both nature of crops viz. Rabi and Kharif which go to show that in Samvat-2025 and in Samvat-2032, crop of “Chaula” was sown by petitioners’ father Moharu over the land of Khasra No.436. 17.2 It is worthy to take note that continuous cultivatory possession of petitioners’, since time of their father and forefather over the land in question, was an undisputed fact from the side of Government of Rajasthan and though the JDA did not admit the possession of petitioners but same is of no avail, since the JDA failed to produce any iota of evidence in rebuttal to show the land in question remained in physical possession of JDA, at any point of time. 17.3 The Board of Revenue at one hand on the basis of appreciation of documentary and oral evidence and relying upon the fact findings of the RAA acknowledged the cultivatory possession of petitioners over the land in question but at the same time by its own, termed their possession as trespassers. 18. This Court finds that the JDA nowhere pleaded and took a plea that petitioners are in possession over the land as trespassers, rather disputed the physical possession of petitioners, hence once the factum of possession stands established, the Board of Revenue acted arbitrary and perverse in assuming the cultivatory possession of petitioners as trespassers by drawing its own presumption, without any evidence and same is virtually like making out a third case by the Board of Revenue at the stage of second appeal, which is ex facie illegal and wholly unwarranted. Hence, such findings passed by the Board of Revenue, at the stage of second appeal, are absolutely perverse as much as can also be held to be beyond the scope and jurisdiction exercised by the Board of Revenue under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 19. The fact findings of cultivatory possession of petitioners over the land in question, as recorded by the RAA are based on due appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, hence, the Board of Revenue while accepting such fact findings committed manifest illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error in treating the possession of petitioners as trespassers over the land in question by its own. Thus, such findings of Board of Revenue to the extent of treating the possession of petitioners as trespassers are set aside, though the findings in respect of cultivatory and physical possession of petitioners over the land in question are hereby affirmed and sustained. 20. The clinching point under consideration before the Board of Revenue was as to whether Khasra No.826/866 measuring 1.20 hectare, ment and developed out of the land of Khasra No.339/414, which was indisputably recorded in the name of Jeevan son of Bakhsa. 20.1 The Board of Revenue adjudicated this factual point by recording its own findings that milan chhetraphal of Khasra No.339/414 showing reformulated into Khasra No.826/866 (old Khasra No.436) as one of its part, has not been produced by petitioners. 20.1 The Board of Revenue adjudicated this factual point by recording its own findings that milan chhetraphal of Khasra No.339/414 showing reformulated into Khasra No.826/866 (old Khasra No.436) as one of its part, has not been produced by petitioners. 20.2 This Court finds that the Board of Revenue erred in adjudicating this clinching & disputed factual point in such slipshod manner and merely on the basis of non-production of milan chhetraphal. 20.3 Board of Revenue could not ponder over that non-production of milan chhetraphal of Khasra No.339/414 by petitioners, was not a deliberate & malicious act of concealment of material evidence but it was just circumstantial apparently due 4to the fact that milan chhetraphal was not available at all, hence other alternative oral & documentary evidence were produced by the petitioners. If milan chhetraphal was available, the JDA could have placed on record the same to destroy and rebut the case of petitioners.Thus, such fact findings of Board of Revenue is perverse. 20.4 That apart, the Board of Revenue seems to have traveled beyond the scope and jurisdiction of Second Appellate Authority entrusted to it by virtue of Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in entering into such factual area of dispute at the stage of second appeal. 21. This Court finds that the Revenue Appellate Authority in exercise of its jurisdiction as first appellate authority, made elaborate and extensive discussion of evidence while deciding issue Nos.2 and 3, have marshalled the other factual matrix & took into consideration the revenue trace maps, issued by the Land Settlement Department and has observed that milan chhetraphal for land of Khasra No.339/414 situated in village Vidhani, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, after settlement proceedings in Samvat-2015, was not prepared, hence was not produced on record by either party. The RAA considered the revenue trace maps, issued by the Land Settlement Department of pre & post settlement proceedings, which are admissible piece of evidence. Neither these revenue trace maps were rebutted by JDA nor the genuineness, legality and validity of these documents were questioned by the JDA, yet the Board of Revenue did not acknowledge the approach of RAA to take into consideration of these revenue trace maps Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P12. Such approach of Board of Revenue is arbitrary and unacceptable. Neither these revenue trace maps were rebutted by JDA nor the genuineness, legality and validity of these documents were questioned by the JDA, yet the Board of Revenue did not acknowledge the approach of RAA to take into consideration of these revenue trace maps Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P12. Such approach of Board of Revenue is arbitrary and unacceptable. 21.1 Indeed the fact findings recorded by the RAA is not only just and proper but well reasoned and based on appreciation of evidence. Learned RAA made the comparative analysis of both the revenue trace maps coupled with the fact that the land of Khasra No. 339/414 (measuring 23 bigha 8 biswa), is an independent and separate chunk of land and no other Khatedari land of petitioners’ grandfather Late Jeevan is situated nearby to such land; the RAA clearly observed that it is apparently clear, through these revenue trace maps that the land of Khasra No.339/414 was segregated in several parts during the settlement proceedings in Samvat-2015, forming the Khasra No.438 (7 bigha 11 biswa), 436/2 (5 bigha) and 436 (5 bigha), yet few portion of this Khasras lacks in favour petitioners. 22. Learned RAA also observed that since Khasra No.339/414 was a separate and independent Khasra, there is no possibility that any area of this Khasra has been added in the other Khatedari lands of petitioners. 23. Thus, the conclusion, on which learned RAA arrived at was justified, rational. The RAA reached to such fact findings after due appreciation of evidence and due application of mind, and within its jurisdiction as well as parameters of law. 24. Such justified and well reasoned fact findings of RAA, have wrongly been reversed by the Board of Revenue that too merely on account of non-production of milan chhetraphal whereas in rebuttal evidence to petitioners’ evidence, the JDA miserably failed to establish the genesis, foundation and nucleus of land of Khasra No.436 (5 bigha), which came to be recorded as sewai chak only after settlement proceedings in Samvat-2015 and which later on was converted in land of Khasra No.826/866. JDA has not been able to show the very basis of drawing presumption of Section 54 of JDA Act, in its favour, more particularly, where State Government failed to prove the land in question as government land since inception and prior to the settlement. JDA has not been able to show the very basis of drawing presumption of Section 54 of JDA Act, in its favour, more particularly, where State Government failed to prove the land in question as government land since inception and prior to the settlement. Mere wrong entry of Khatedari land of private persons, in favour of JDA, does not lead any presumption, more so, when such presumption has been repelled by the petitioners by adducing best possible documentary and oral evidence. No evidence, in rebuttal by the JDA was produced and JDA only took resort of a presumption of mutation entry of the land in question as government land. 25. This Court finds that in the light of documents Exhibits P1, P11, P12 and oral evidence including the statements of Office Kanoongo (PW-3), produced by petitioners and admission of State Government in the written statement to the effect that the land of Khasra No.436 (5 bigha) was not recorded as Sewai Chak prior to the settlement of Samvat-2015 as also coupled with the factum of cultivatory possession of petitioners, the presumption in favour of JDA, merely on the basis of revenue entry of such Khasra in the name of JDA, stands rebutted and such presumption cannot overweigh the evidence adduced by the petitioners. Petitioners produced best available evidence in their power and possession to establish the fact that the land of Khasra No.826/866 ment from land of Khasra No.339/414 and same has been proved to be in their continuous, uninterrupted and cultivatory possession, hence mere recording a portion of land of their Khatedari, as government land, during the course of settlement proceedings-2015, does not and cannot deprive the petitioners from enjoyment of their khatedari land. Thus, they are entitled for declaration of resumption of their Khatedari rights and protection of their possession over the land in question. 26. This Court finds that in the backdrop of such factual matrix, the Board of Revenue exercised its jurisdiction in breach of scope available under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and committed manifest illegality and perversity in upsetting the well reasoned fact findings and justified judgment, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 27. 26. This Court finds that in the backdrop of such factual matrix, the Board of Revenue exercised its jurisdiction in breach of scope available under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and committed manifest illegality and perversity in upsetting the well reasoned fact findings and justified judgment, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 27. For ready reference, the portion of fact findings recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority in judgment and decree dated14.10.2009 are being reproduced hereunder:- ^^Okkn fcUnq la[;k 4 vuqrks"k bl okn esa 1 ls 3 okn fcUnq oknh vihykUV dks gh lkfcr djus Fks tks mi;qZDr foospu vuqlkj oknh vihykUV ds i{k esa lkfcr gks pqds gSA oSls Hkh ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k cu pqdh gS fd Hkw&izcU/k foHkkx dks xr bUnzktksa dks gh nksgjkuk pkfg, ijUrq Hkw&izcU/k dk;Zokgh laor 2015 esa oknh vihykUV dh [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe [k0 ua0 339@414 jdck 23 ch?kk 8 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh cny dj bl [k0 ua0 ls cus u;s [k0 ua0 438 ,oa 436@2 esa dqy feykdj 12 ch?kk 11 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh gh oknhx.kksa ds [kkrs ntZ dhA vr% [kkrsnkjh dk jdck Hkw&izcU/k dk;Zokgh esa de fd;k x;k tks {ks=kkf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ls fujLr fd;s tkdj oknhx.k dh iw.kZr% [kkrsnkjh iw.kZLFkkfir dh tkuh fof/k lEer gS vihykUV }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1983 vkjvkjMh 84 o 364 gekjs bl fopkj/khu izdj.k ij iw.kZ :i ls ykxw gksrh gSA okn fcUnq ,d nks ,oa rhu ls foospu ls ;g iw.kZr% fl) gks pqdk gS fd lkfcd ewy [k0 ua0 tks laor 2015 ds iwoZ izHkko esa Fkk ml ewy [k0 389 dk cMk Hkkx Fkk rFkk og [k0 ua0 xzke fo|kuh dh lhek ij Fkk mlds feu [k0 ua0 339@414 jdck 23 ch?kk 8 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh fuZfookn :i ls gky oknhx.k ds nknk thok ¼thou½ iq= c[klk ds uke ij ntZ Fkh rFkk oknhx.k dh [kkrsnkjh dh dksbZ Hkh vU; Hkwfe;ka bl fookfnr Hkwfe ds vklikl ,oa yxrh ugha Fkh vr% mDr [k0 ua0 ds LFkku ij cus okn ds [k0 ua0 438 o 436@2 dh [kkrsnkjh jdck 12 ch?kk 11 fcLok gh thok ¼thou½ ds csVs eksg: ds uke ntZ dh xbZ rFkk oknh dh [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe flok; pd [k0 ua0 436 esa feyk nh xbZ gS tks laor 1987 ls 2003 ds uD'kk V?sl laor 2015 ds lsfVyesaV ds uD'kk V?sl ds feyku djus ls lkfcr gks tkrk gS iqu% gky lsfVyesaV dk;Zokgh esa oknhx.kksa dh [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe jdck 5 ch?kk tks lkfcd [k0 ua0 436 esa feykdj flokQ~Dd dj j[kk Fkk ijUrq dCtk oknhx.k dk ;Fkkor pyrk jgk] ls gky u;s [k0 ua0 826@866 jdck 1-20 gS0 cukdj iqu% flok; pd dj fn;k x;k rkfd ckn esa ts0Mh0,0 {ks= esa mDr Hkwfe vk tkus ls flok; pd Hkwfe;ka ts0Mh0,0 ds [kkrs ntZ dj nh xbZ ysfdu lHkh uD'kk V?sl ds feyku djus ij gky [k0 ua0 836@866 laor 2015 dk gh Hkkx ¼fgLlk½ gksuk lkfcr gSA 2015 ds iwoZ ds [k0 ua0 339@414 jdck 23 ch?kk 11 fcLok dh [kkrsnkjh oknhx.kksa ds }kjk thou dh fuZfookn :i ls [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe Fkh ftldk orZeku eki ¼gS0½ esa jdck 5-85 gSDVj curk gS tcfd oknhx.kksa ds [kkrsnkjh esa [k0 ua0 825] 818] 826 dqy jdck 3-13 gS0 gh ntZ gS rFkk gky fookfnr [k0 ua0 836@866 jdck 1-20 gS0 Hkwfe oknhx.k ds bu Hkwfe;ksa ds yxrh gqbZ gksdj [k0 ua0 826 ds jft0 u;s gS bl Hkwfe fookfnr Hkwfe 1-20 gS0 dks feyk nsus ij gky [k0 ua0 818@0-50] 826@2-14] 825@0-49 ,oa 836@866@1-20 dk dqy jdck 4-33 gSDVj gh curk gS tks oknhx.k ds lkfcd [k0 ua0 339@414 jdck 23 ch?kk 11 fcLok gky gSDVs;j jdck 5-85 gSDVs;j ls cgqr de jgrk gS vr% orZeku fookfnr [k0 ua0 836@866 jdck 1-20 gSDVs;j oknhx.k dh iwoZ dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe [k0 ua0 339@414 dk gh Hkkx fl) gSA pwafd oknhx.k dh lkfcd vjkth [k0 ua0 339@414 jdck 23 ch0 11 fcLok Hkwfe ,oa gky [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe [k0 ua0 818] 825] 826 ds yxrh gqbZ (Contigunes) vU; dksbZ Hkwfe u gh igys Fkh u vHkh gS vr% ;g laHkkouk Hkh ugha jgrh fd lkfcd [k0 ua0 339@414 dk dqN jdck oknhx.kksa dh vU; [kkrsnkjh ds vU; [k0 ua0 dh Hkwfe esa feyk fn;k x;k gksA vr% oknh vihykUVkx.k gky [k0 ua0 826@866 jdck 1-20 gS0 Hkwfe dh bUnzkt nq:Lrh ,oa [kkrsnkjh ?kks"k.kk ds vf/kdkjh gSA mi;qZDr foospu ds vuqlkj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 13-11-06 fujLr fd;k tkdj vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk oknh@vihykaV dk nkok fM?h fd;k tkdj oknhx.k dks gky vkjkth [k0 ua0 826@866 jdck 1-20 gS0 okds xzke fo|kuh rglhy lkaxkujs dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfroknh 1 o 2 dks tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknhx.k ds mDr [k0 ua0 826@866 ij dCts dk'r esa ck/kk mRiUu u djsaA ipkZ fM?h tkjh gksA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 14-10-2009 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA** 28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue committed manifest illegality, jurisdictional error and perversity in reversing the judgment dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority which resulted into miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. Petitioners cannot be deprived from protection of their own land of Khatedari, which has been in their continuous and cultivatory possession since time of their forefathers merely on account of wrongful entry of portion of their land as Sewai Chak (government land) during the settlement proceedings. Such entry is illegal and without jurisdiction. Thus, the judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and deserves to be quashed. 29. As an upshot of discussion and foregoing enunciation, instant writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer is hereby quashed and the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur stands restored. No costs. 30. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.