Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota as well as the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short “the Board”). 2. By passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, the Divisional Commissioner, Kota has set aside the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short “UIT”) under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”). 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.02.2021 by treating the same as non-maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT submits that the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 of the colony “Model Town” were carried out by the UIT in which a plot was kept vacant/reserved for Other Civil Facility/Other Computational Facility (for short “OCF”). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had encroached upon this land for which a notice under Section 91-A and 91-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act , 1959 (for short “the Act of 1959”) was issued to them. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the UIT, the respondents approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10747/2008 seeking directions against the petitioner for release of patta of Plot No.5A in his favour and restrain the respondents for treating the plot as OCF or for any other purpose. Learned counsel submits that the entire case of the respondents was confined to their claim over the land situated at Plot No.5A. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the respondents (“petitioners” therein) with liberty to avail other alternative remedy of filing appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016 and liberty was granted to the respondents to prefer appeal within a period of 30 days and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the same on its merits ignoring the period of limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2016 and liberty was granted to the respondents to prefer appeal within a period of 30 days and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the same on its merits ignoring the period of limitation. Learned counsel submits that in the garb of the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2016, the respondents have challenged the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the petitioner-UIT under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel submits that, while going beyond its jurisdiction, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal and the order dated 15.01.2001 was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that there is no reason or occasion available with the respondents to assail the order dated 15.01.2001 by way of filing appeal, as their case was confined to Plot No.5A only, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as the order passed by the Board are not sustainable in th eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondents are the whole & sole owner of the subject land since time immemorial and they have raised constructions over the same. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner-UIT was not having any authority to declare the subject land as OCF, for utilization of the same as facility area for inhabitance in the vicinity. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner with regard to the scheme of patta of the aforesaid land is a consequence of the order dated 15.01.2001, therefore, unless and until, the order dated 15.01.2001 is not quashed and set-aside, the patta of the subject land could not have been issued in favour of the respondents or the respondents could not have made their claim over the subject land. Learned counsel submits that the land in question was declared as abadi on 04.01.1949 and the Tehsildar has issued a report in this regard in the year 1973. Learned counsel submits that these facts were appreciated by the Divisional Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Learned counsel submits that the land in question was declared as abadi on 04.01.1949 and the Tehsildar has issued a report in this regard in the year 1973. Learned counsel submits that these facts were appreciated by the Divisional Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956, the proceedings for the scheme of Model Town were conducted and completed by the UIT and the same were never assailed by anyone, hence, the same has attained finality. It appears that the subject land was declared as OCF for utilization as a facility area and the respondents were in occupation of the said land for which notices under Section 91-A and 91-B of the Act of 1959 were issued to him by the UIT, Kota, treating him as an encroacher upon the same. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondents had approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10747/2008, wherein the following prayer was made:- “(I) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to place on record the entire relevant record pertain into petitioners plot in question and may kindly be perused by the Hon’ble Court and after its perusal. (II) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to release patta of Plot No.5A in favour of petitioner situated in Himmat Bhawan Compound Village Kherli Purohit, Tehsil Ladpura, Distt. Kota. (III) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained from treating Plot No.5A as OCF or for any other purpose the respondents be restrained from taking any action in its regard. (IV) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained from creating any obstruction in peaceful use of Plot No.5A by the petitioner. (V) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained to take any action in regard to Plot No.5A and be further restrained from issuing any order in its regard which further adversely effect the petitioner. (V) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained to take any action in regard to Plot No.5A and be further restrained from issuing any order in its regard which further adversely effect the petitioner. (VI) Any other order which is passed in regard to Plot No.5A by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition prejudicial and adversely effecting the rights of the petitioner may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. (VII) Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted by this Hon’ble Court.” 9. The bare perusal of the contents of the aforesaid writ petition as well as prayer made therein clearly indicate that the case of the respondents was confined to Plot No.5A. During the course of arguments, it was stated that the respondents withdrew the aforesaid writ petition seeking liberty from this Court to avail the alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Considering the aforesaid prayer made by the respondent, the writ petition was dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and a direction was issued to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits, ignoring the period of limitation vide order dated 06.09.2016. 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondents approached the Divisional Officer, Kota by way of filing an appeal. It is in utter surprise that in the garb of the order dated 06.09.2016, the respondent had challenged the validity of the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the UIT, Kota under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956. 11. This Court had never granted any such liberty rather it was never been sought but even then the respondents are misusing the said liberty. They preferred sappeal challenging the validity of the aforesaid order. An objection was taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner, but overlooking to the said objection, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.05.2017 and the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the UIT was quashed and set-aside. There was no reason or occasion available with the Divisional Commissioner to quash the order dated 15.01.2001. An objection was taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner, but overlooking to the said objection, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.05.2017 and the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the UIT was quashed and set-aside. There was no reason or occasion available with the Divisional Commissioner to quash the order dated 15.01.2001. The Divisional Commissioner could have confined its order with regard to the claim of the respondents over the subject land, i.e., Plot No.5A. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 and the consequential order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Board are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed and set-aside. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to approach the appropriate Appellate Authority confining their case and claim over the subject Plot No.5A. 14. The parties may appear before the Divisional Commissioner on 04.08.2025. It is expected from the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of their appearance on the basis of the documents submitted by both the sides strictly in accordance with law. 15. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.