[2025:RJ-JP:2049] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4286/2001 1. Munnalal (since deceased) through Legal Representatives 1/1. Vishwa Bandhu, S/o Munnalal 1/2. Meena D/o Munnalal 1/3. Padmawati D/o Munnalal 1/4. Uma, D/o Munnalal 2. Dinesh Chandra Both sons of Raghuveer Prasad. 3. Bishan Swaroop 4. Hari Kishan 5. Naresh Kumar All sons of Munnalal 6. Brijesh Kumar 7. Jagdish Prasad 8. Brijesh (since deceased) 8/1. Vimla Mishra W/o Brijendra, 8/2. Rajni W/o Vishnu (D/o Brijendra) 8/3. Rajeev Mishra S/o Brijendra 8/4. Sunil Misra S/o Brijendra 9. Ravindra Kumar All sons of Shri Daya Sagar 10. Anupam son of Shri Suresh Kumar All Resident of Old City, Dholpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through The Secretary in the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Board of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer. 3. 4. The Additional Collector, Dholpur The Tehsildar, Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC [2025:RJ-JP:2049] (2 of 3) [CW-4286/2001] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 15/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 04.07.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), Ajmer. 2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entries with regard to the land measuring 11 Bigha, 5 Biswa situated in Khasra No.426 in Village Bhainsakh, District Dholpur. On 10.04.2000, a suit was decreed. On the application of the Tehsildar, a reference was made to the Board under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘1955 Act’). The reference was accepted on 04.07.2001. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board has erred in accepting the reference. The land-in-question was in cultivating possession of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. The Settlement Department wrongly recorded the land as Charagah. 4. The contention is that while decreeing the suit, the Court had taken into consideration the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar wherein, the patta in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was considered. The Board without giving an opportunity, recorded a finding that the patta was neither produced in the revenue suit nor before the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced photocopy of the patta which is taken on record. [2025:RJ-JP:2049] (3 of 3) [CW-4286/2001] 5. The Board allowed the reference holding that Khatedari of the Charagah land could not have been conferred as per the provisions of the 1955 Act. It was considered that the petitioners claimed the cultivating possession on the basis of the patta issued by the former Jagirdar but the patta was not produced. In the suit, order of Naib Tehsildar was produced which referred to Patta in favour of the petitioners. In any case, the Board before recording that no Patta was produced before it, should have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to produce a copy of the patta. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Board dated 04.07.2001 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Board to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition is allowed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/RIYA/8 Whether Reportable: Yes