[2025:RJ-JP:15843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19368/2022 State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Amarnath S/o Babulal, R/o Outside Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur. 2. Bhim Singh S/o Jagani, R/o Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 3. Raghuveer Singh S/o Jagani, R/o Surajpole Gate, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 4. Mangal Saini S/o Shri Babulal, R/o Prince Nagar, Bharatpur. 5. Rukmani D/o Shri Babulal, R/o Prince Nagar, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Ms. Gunjan Chawla Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Mr. Vishal Karnani For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.C. Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) by which reference filed by the petitioner under Section 82 read with Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the land in question belonged to canal of CFCD but the respondents in [2025:RJ-JP:15843] (2 of 4) [CW-19368/2022] order to get mutation of the land in their names colluded with the revenue authorities. Learned counsel submits that land of canal/catchment area cannot be allotted or used for residential purpose in view of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 4 WLC (Raj.) 435 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reference submitted by the petitioner-State has not been decided on its merits but the same has been rejected on a technical count that the matter has already been decided by the Board on earlier occasion i.e. 03.10.2018 while deciding the appeal submitted by Bhim Singh and Raghuveer Singh against one Amarnath and State against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur. Learned counsel submits that while deciding the aforesaid appeal on 03.10.2018 it was specifically observed by the Board that State would not preclude from assailing the judgment separately and judgment dated 03.10.2018 would not have any effect upon the interest of the petitioner-State. Learned counsel submits that misinterpreting the aforesaid order, a reference filed by the State has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that matter is required to be adjudicated on its merits and demerits by the Board, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was assailed by Bhim Singh and Raghuveer Singh before the Board by way of filing appeal [2025:RJ-JP:15843] (3 of 4) [CW-19368/2022] against Amarnath and State, and the same was decided by the Board vide judgment dated 03.10.2018 and the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was quashed and set-aside and the parties were declared as Khatedar of the land in question, hence under these circumstances, reference submitted by the petitioner-State with regard to the issue which has already been decided by the Board was not maintainable and the Board has not committed any error in rejecting the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner could have assailed the order passed by the court below by way of filing separate appeal but instead of doing so reference has been filed and the same is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh & Others Versus Kisturi & Others reported in 2009 (2) RRT 1094. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that rival claims have been raised by the petitioner and the respondents with regard to their right over the property in question. This fact is not in dispute that in review proceedings initiated by the respondents, the matter has been finalised at the level of the Board while deciding the appeal submitted by Bhim Singh and Raguveer Singh vide judgment dated 03.10.2018. This fact is also not in dispute that while deciding the aforesaid appeal, the Revenue Board granted liberty to the State to assail the order passed by the authorities by [2025:RJ-JP:15843] (4 of 4) [CW-19368/2022] initiating separate proceedings and the order dated 03.10.2018 will not have any adverse effect upon the same. 8. Thereafter, a reference was submitted by the petitioner before the Board claiming the ownership over the property in question on a technical count that the canal land of CFCD is a catchment area and the same could not be allotted/entered in the name of private parties. 9. The question of maintainability has not been decided by the Board in light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra). 10. In the considered view of this Court, the matter was required to be decided afresh by the Board. This Court is not going into the controversy with regard to maintainability of reference in light of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Board. The matter is remitted to the Board for its fresh adjudication in light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh (supra). 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/53