[2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR (1.) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1925/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2035/2008 Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur Through Its Sr. Regional Manager. ----Appellant Versus 1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Jaipur. 4. Kanhiya Lal S/o Bhaga, Resident Of Jhalna Chor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 5. Hazarilal S/o Bhaga, Resident Of Jhala Chor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs): 5/1. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Lalchand Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Bhater, Vatika, Jaipur. 5/2. Lalchand Mali S/o Hajari Mali, R/o 57, Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harusliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 5/3. Roopnarayan Saini S/o Hajari Lal Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harusliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 5/4. 5/5. 5/6. 6. 7. 8. 9. Asha Devi W/o Rajendra, R/o Chatarpura, Pawaliya, Jaipur. Dinesh Saini S/o Hajari Lal, R/o Khejro Ka Bas, Harusliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. Phoolchand S/o Hajari Lal Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harsuliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. Smt. Meera Devi W/o Shri Chouth Mal, Resident Of Sanganer, District Jaipur. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. Assistant Settlement Officer, Sanganer, District Jaipur, Head Office, Viman Bhawan, Behind Khasa Kothi, Jaipur. Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur 10. Assistant Collector & Magistrate (Training)- Jaipur (Now [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (2 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] 11. 12. 13. 14. SDO, Chaksu, Jaipur). Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, Sanganer. M/s Mansarovar Apartment Private Limited, Registered Office At KLF Towers, F-13B, Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur Through Director Alok Kotahwala. Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Choudhary, Aged 52 Years, R/o Babli Farm, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. Smt. Sunita Bakshi W/o Shri Komal Bakshi, Aged 60 Years, R/o 65, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With (2.) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1926/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2036/2008 Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur through its Sr. Regional Manager. ----Appellant Versus 1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. Assistant Collector (Training), Jaipur (now S.D.O.-II, Jaipur). 3. Kanhiya Lal S/o Bhaga, resident Of Jhalna Chor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. Hazarilal S/o Bhaga, resident Of Jhala Chor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs): 4/1. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Lalchand Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Bhater, Vatika, Jaipur. 4/2. Lalchand Mali S/o Hajari Mali, R/o 57, Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harusliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 4.3. Roopnarayan Saini S/o Hajari Lal Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harsuliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 4/4. Asha Devi W/o Rajendra, R/o Chatarpura, Pawaliya, Jaipur. 4/5. Dinesh Saini S/o Hajari Lal, R/o Khejro Ka Bas, Harsuliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 4/6. Phoolchand S/o Hajari Lal Saini, R/o Maliyon Ki Dhani, Khejro Ka Bas, Harsuliya, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 5. Smt. Meera Devi W/o Shri Chouth Mal, resident Of Sanganer, District Jaipur. 6. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 7. Settlement Commissioner, Settlement office, Behind Khasa Kothi, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (3 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] 8. M/s Mansarover Apartment Private Limited, Registered Office At KLF Towers, F-13B, Malviya Indistrial Area, Jaipur through Director Alok Kotahwala. 9. Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Choudhary, aged 52 Years, R/o Babli Farm, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. 10. Smt. Sunita Bakshi W/o Shri Komal Bakshi, Aged 60 Years, R/o 65 Years, R/o 65, Pratap Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur. -----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Advocate, ASG assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gurucharan Singh Gill, AAG assisted by Ms. Shikha Sharma Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Atul Bhardwaj Mr. Vikas Saini HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Judgment Date of conclusion of arguments : 11/02/2026 Date on which judgment was reserved : 11/02/2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgment Date of pronouncement : 28/03/2026 (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) 1. The present two special appeals challenge the judgment dated 29.09.2008 whereby, the two writ petitions filed by the RIICO were dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the subordinate Revenue Authorities were upheld. 2. We notice that though the subject matter of both the writ petitions was different, but the learned Single Judge took up both [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (4 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] the writ petitions filed by the RIICO on the ground that the land in question and parties to the proceedings were similar. Brief Facts: 3. A Revenue Suit No.252/1985 was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents Kanhaiyalal, Hazarilal and Smt. Meera Devi under Sections 88, 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred as "the Act") before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate (hereinafter referred as "ACM") seeking declaration that the total area of land bearing khasra Nos. 203 and 204 be corrected as 22 bigha and 8 biswa which was wrongly entered as 19 bigha and 4 biswa in the settlement operations which had taken place in Samvat 2015, corresponding Year 1958, and to record the name of the plaintiffs as khatedar-tenants after the settlement proceedings. The plaintiffs thus, claimed that they should be recorded as khatedar tenants for 3 bigha and 4 biswa of Khasra Nos.203 and 204, while for the remaining land RIICO may be shown as khatedars. In support of their case, the plaintiffs placed on record a copy of 'Jamabandi', 'Khasra Girdawari', 'Purcha Settlement', 'Settlement Slip', Receipt Lagaan and 'Statement of Patwari Halka Durga' dated 15.04.1958. 4. The State Government filed its written statement through Tehsildar on 3/7.02.1986 and admitted that the total area of the land of Khasra Nos.203 and 204 was 22 bigha and 8 biswa. 5. After framing issues and examining the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, as no evidence was led on behalf of the defendants, who admitted the facts, the concerned ACM dismissed [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (5 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] the suit on 21.06.1986. The concerned ACM was a trainee at that time. 6. The appeal, therefore, was preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 21.06.1986. The Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) set aside the order passed by the ACM dated 21.06.1986, vide its judgment dated 02.08.1986 and declared that the plaintiffs are khatedar tenants of the land bearing khasra Nos.203 and 204. The area of khasra Nos.203 and 204 was held to be 22 bigha and 8 biswa and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were held to be equal share-holders. Out of the said land, the RAA declared that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 would hold the land 19 bigha and 4 biswa as equal shareholders while for remaining land, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 will have equal in half share and the plaintiff No.3 Mst. Meera Devi would have half share. 7. Second appeal was preferred by the State Government challenging the order dated 02.08.1986 of RAA, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 14.12.1993. 8. It is submitted that as there was error in the comparative chart of the new and old khasra numbers, in spite of their being a declaration of the land being 22 bigha and 8 biswa, an application was moved under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for correction of revenue records by three brothers and sister together. In respect of khasra No.291 measuring 0.81 hectare, it was prayed that the khasra number be shown as old khasra Nos.203 and 204. 9. Written statements were filed to the application under Section 136 both by the RIICO as well as the State of Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (6 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] 10. The SDO allowed the application on 02.11.2004 and passed an order holding present khasra No.291 measuring 0.81 hectare as part of old khasra Nos.203 and 204. 11. The RIICO challenged the said order before the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur who vide its order dated 26.06.2006 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the SDO. Second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed on 24.07.2007. 12. The aforesaid three orders of SDO, Divisional Commissioner and BOR were challenged by the RIICO filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2035/2008 before the Single Judge. In the said writ petition, RIICO has also challenged the order dated 14.12.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue and the order passed by the RAA dated 02.08.1986. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 29.09.2008. Hence, the present special appeal No.1925/2008. 13. In other writ petition No.2036/2008, the challenge was to the orders dated 24.07.2007 and 10.03.2004 passed by BOR and SDO respectively. The suit seeking permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed by the ACM vide judgment dated 07.01.1989 and the appeal preferred by the RIICO before the Revenue Appellate Authority was also dismissed on 12.06.1990. Second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, wherein amendment application was moved by the RIICO under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereby amended written statement, as placed, was sought to be taken on record. [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (7 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] 14. The Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 10.06.1997, allowed the appeal of RIICO in part setting aside the judgments dated 12.06.1990 and 07.01.1989 passed by RAA and ACM, Chaksu respectively and remanded the case back to ACM, Chaksu. 15. The ACM, Chaksu directed the plaintiffs to file rejoinder by 24.07.1997 seeking condonation of 20 days delay in filing rejoinder. The SDO allowed the application with cost of Rs.500/- vide order dated 10.03.2004. 16. A revision petition was preferred by RIICO before the Board of Revenue contending that the time for filing rejoinder could not have been extended except by the Board of Revenue. 17. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition filed by RIICO vide its order dated 24.07.2007 and extended the time to file rejoinder on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue was challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2036/2008, which has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 29.09.2008 and the present Special Appeal No.1926/2008 has been filed. 18. The appellant -RIICO has detailed out the background of the original land record relating to the land in question and submits that originally Khasra No.256 measuring 219 bighas 18 biswas, during settlement operations, was subdivided into several new Khasras and Milan Kshetraphal reflects the division of Khasra No.256 into different parcels, amending the total area of 219 bighas 18 biswas among the new Khasra Nos.192, 203 & 204 and Khatoni Bandobast of Samvat 2015-2034 reflects Khasra No.203 [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (8 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] to be 13 bighas 17 biswas and Khasra No.204 as 5 bighas 7 biswas in the khatedari of Bhagirath s/o Panna and Ramnarain s/o Maru. 19. Subsequently, Khasra No. 192 was converted into 291 and 291/394 admeasuring 0.81 hectare and 0.20 hectare respectively, while Khasra No.203 was reflected as new Khasra No.291/394 measuring 3.50 hectare and Khasra No. 204 was converted into new Khasra No.291/394 as 1.50 hectare. 20. It is further stated that on 18.07.1979, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953, acquiring various parts of land, which included Khasra Nos. 192 (admeasuring 4 Bigha), 203 (admeasuring 13 Bighas, 17 Biswas) and 204 (admeasuring 5 Bigha, 7 Biswas). The same was required for industrial development purposes. 21. On 22.06.1982, a declaration under Section 6 read with section 17(4) was also issued. It is also stated that on 18.10.1982, possession of the land was taken by the State and the same was handed over to RIICO and the land vests in RIICO, free from all encumbrances. 22. On 14.05.1984 an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and compensation was paid to the respondent Nos.4 & 5 for khasra no. 203 and 204, and to Kanhaiya Lal, Suraj Narayan, Roop Narayan and Ram Narayan for Khasra No.192. 23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that despite the land having been acquired and possession taken, the plaintiffs-respondents Kanhaiya Lal, Hazarilal and Smt. Meera Devi filed a suit under Sections 88 and 89 before the Tehsildar [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (9 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] alleging that Bhagirath was the original khatedar of Khasra Nos.203 & 204 and during settlement operations in December 2015, the Khasra numbers were wrongly recorded and measured as 19 bighas 4 biswas together instead of 22 bighas 8 biswas. 24. Learned senior counsel submits that the RIICO was not impleaded as a party to the declaration suit, although it was admitted in the plaint that 19 bighas 4 biswas of land has already been acquired. 25. On 21.06.1986, the ACM Chaksu had dismissed the suit. The Revenue Appellate Authority, however, allowed the appeal on 02.08.1986 relying upon the report dated 31.07.1986 of the Settlement Department and the amended trace map of Samvat 2026-27. Accordingly, Mutation No.2 dated 25.08.1987 was entered recording 3 bighas 4 biswas in favour of plaintiffs- respondent Nos.4 to 6. 26. The State filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which came to be dismissed on 14.12.1993 and the order passed by the RAA was upheld. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and the State seeking relief for non-interference on 3 bighas 4 biswas of land on which they were in possession. 27. On 07.01.1989, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 injuncting RIICO not to interfere in the land, admeasuring 3 bighas 4 biswas. The appeal against the said order was filed by RIICO which was dismissed on 12.06.1990. Second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, whereafter an application was sought to be moved by the RIICO before the [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (10 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] Board of Revenue seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate that Khasra No.291 admeasuring 0.81 hectares were also required to be considered. 28. On 10.06.1997, the application was allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the decree of injunction dated 07.01.1989 and the order dated 12.06.1999 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to ACM, Chaksu for fresh decision with further directions to frame specific issues in relation to Khasra No.192 (old). 29. While the revenue suit before ACM, Chaksu remained pending, an application was filed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 under Section 136 of the Act of 1956, seeking correction in the Milan Khsetarphal to new Khasra No.291 showing admeasuring 0.81 hectares against the old Khasra Nos.203 & 204. 30. The RIICO filed reply opposing the application. On 02.11.2004, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur (II) allowed the application of correction and held that the present Khasra No.291 measuring 0.81 hectares as part of the old Khasra Nos.203 & 204. 31. Learned counsel appearing for RIICO submits that the finding was incorrect and in fact land admeasuring 0.81 hectares, equivalent to 3 bighas 4 biswas, that was falling in Khasra No.192 (old), was acquired alongwith Khasra Nos.203 & 204. 32. The RIICO preferred an appeal against the order dated 02.11.2004 under Section 75 of the Act of 1956 and the same was dismissed on 26.06.2006. Second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue too was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2007. The challenge was thereafter made by RIICO to the orders passed [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (11 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] on 24.07.2007, 26.06.2006, 02.11.2004, 14.12.1993 and 02.08.1986 by preferring writ petition No.2035/2008 & 2036/2008 which too were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 29.09.2008 holding that there is no illegality, perversity and jurisdictional error. 33. Learned senior counsel submits that there was a fraud conducted on the part of the plaintiffs-respondents for not impleading RIICO as party to the original suit filed. He submits that there were false admissions made by the Tehsildars and jurisdiction of revenue courts was wrongly invoked. 34. He submits that the entire land was acquired for RIICO which included Khasra No.192 (old) and Khasra Nos.203 & 204 and the entire land vests in the RIICO. There was no separate 3 bighas 4 biswas of land which can be said to be remaining with the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.4 to 6. 35. He further submits that the judgment passed by the revenue authorities and by the learned Single Judge, thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside and it should be held that the entire land is in possession of RIICO. Once Khasra Nos.192, 203 & 204 were included in the Section 4 notification and possession had already been taken on 18.10.1982, the entirety of these Khasra numbers vest with the RIICO. There was no residue or surplus portion available to be retained by the erstwhile khatedars. Discovery of an area later does not enlarge, diminish or alter the vesting. 36. Learned counsel also submits that the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 crystalizes that on the date of acquisition, the area, ownership and classification [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (12 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] of the land are to be determined as they existed on that date. Subsequent entries or alteration in the revenue record whether by way of re-survey, correction or mutation cannot alter the identity or existent of the land validly notified. He submits that even if subsequent enquiry reveals that actual area of the Khasra is larger than what was recorded, the additional area would also stand acquired and vested in the State/RIICO. 37. He further submits that it is a case of zero compensation and not zero acquisition and that if the actual area is less than recorded, the acquisition of khasra does not fail. He submits that the acquisition attaches to the identity of the khasra and not to the quantum of the area and therefore, the conclusion of revenue authorities and learned Single Judge of 3 bighas 4 biswas having remained unacquired is contrary to the Act of 1894 and legally impermissible. 38. Learned counsel assailing the judgment of RAA dated 02.08.1986 submits that a decree could not rest on an "admission" contrary to revenue entries; the admission itself was collusive and non-binding on RIICO. The, suit under Sections 88 and 89 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was entertained after acquisition and without impleading RIICO, though the plaint itself acknowledged acquisition. The so-called admission by the Tehsildar (State) that the area "seems" to be 22 Bighas 8 Biswas is ex facie contrary to the settlement and Jamabandi entries and cannot displace statutory revenue records. A court cannot decree a title/ measurement dispute purely on an admission that is against the record and has no documentary substratum. Moreover, [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (13 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] RIICO was not a party; any such admission cannot bind the beneficiary of acquisition whose independent title and possession had already accrued. The land was acquired for RIICO and possession handed over as far back as 1982; the State had no subsisting proprietary interest thereafter. The controversy in the suit concerned the very identity and measurement of the acquired land-issues that directly impact RIICO's vested rights. Treating RIICO as a mere "privy" ignores its statutory persona and the legal effect of vesting. A decree determining area/rights behind RIICO's back is a nullity as against RIICO. 39. Learned counsel further submits that the RAA's reliance on extra-record material violated Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; the "Samvat 2026-27" trace and "Shahjani Kanghi" are irrelevant. The RAA's judgment dated 02.08.1986 rests on a Settlement Officer's report dated 31.07.1986 and a reference to an "amended trace map of Samvat 2026-27" (Annexure W9). No application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was moved; the material was neither proved nor put to the parties for rebuttal; and the "Samvat 2026- 27" materials are, in any event, irrelevant because the authoritative settlement occurred in Samvat 2015. The auxiliary reliance on "Shahjani Kanghi" to inflate area has no statutory footing, contradicts the settlement/Jamabandi, and therefore lacks evidentiary value. The Board's later endorsement of these infirmities on 14.12.1993 (Annexure W10) inherits the same illegality. 40. Learned counsel also submits that Khasra No. 192 was wrongly treated as 2 Bighas 7 Biswas; revenue record shows 4 [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (14 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] Bighas, and the downstream inferences are perverse. The SDO's order dated 02.11.2004 proceeds on a mistaken premise that old Khasra No. 192 measured 2 Bighas 7 Biswas, whereas the Jamabandi shows 4 Bighas. On this error, the SDO superimposed old/new maps, speculated about a road alignment, and then re-allocated areas between new Khasra No. 291/394 min and old Khasra Nos. 203/204. These are not clerical corrections but substantive re-determinations of area and identity in the teeth of record. The Divisional Commissioner (26.06.2006) and the Board (24.07.2007) simply affirmed the same misconception (Annexure-17). 41. Learned counsel submits Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act does not confer jurisdiction to re-measure, re- allocate, or re-engineer land parcels. Section 136 enables correction of mistakes of a clerical/ arithmetical nature. It does not permit the authority to: (i) rewrite settled measurements; (ii) superimpose maps across different settlement epochs; (iii) infer physical changes (e.g., roads) to redistribute areas; or (iv) adjudicate title. The SDO's exercise is ultra vires Section 136 and amounts to a de facto re-settlement. The learned Single Judge erred in upholding this jurisdictional transgression. 42. Revenue Courts lacked jurisdiction after acquisition and industrial vesting. Once land is acquired, possession taken, and the land vested for industrial use, the revenue fora cannot entertain suits for declaration/measurement under the Tenancy or Land Revenue enactments as if the land still formed a part of an agricultural holding. The jurisdictional premise of the plaintiffs' [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (15 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] proceedings was therefore fundamentally flawed, and all consequential orders deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. 43. Learned counsel further made additional submissions in written arguments where he states as under: "38. Surprisingly the land in question was originally recorded in the names of Shri Hazari and Shri Kanhaiyalal, both sons of Shri Bhaga. One-half share of the said land was first sold to Mrs. Sushila Chaudhary through two registered sale deeds dated 26.07.2005, executed respectively by Shri Hazari for his 1/4th share and by Shri Dinesh, acting as attorney of Shri Kanhaiyalal, for the remaining 1/4th share, both registered on 30.08.2005 at Sub-Registrar, Jaipur VIII. Thereafter, Mrs. Sushila Chaudhary, acting as attorney of Mrs. Meera Devi, conveyed the said one-half share to Mrs. Sunita Bakshi through a registered sale deed executed on 16.08.2005 and registered on 23.08.2005 at Sub-Registrar, Jaipur VIII. Consequent to these transactions, Mutation No. 32 dated 24.08.2006 was sanctioned in favour of the purchasers, thereby reflecting the transfer of title in the revenue records. The purchaser of the first instance sold this land by a registered sale deed dated 18.09.2007 in favour of M/s Mansarovar Apartments Private Ltd (Annexure-19) Both the transaction of sales occurred prior to 29.08.2008 i.e., the date of the dismissal of the writ petitions numbered SBCWP No.2035/2008 and 2036/2008 in the presence of the khatedar tenants. The fact regarding sale was concealed. During the pendency of the Special Appeals, the present contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5, filed application inter alia stating the fact of the purchase of the land. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow its impleadment. Thereafter, on 07.12.2016 as passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, the contesting respondent was directed to place on record the plaint of Suit No.252/85 filed by them before the Assistant Collector, the memo of appeal before the First Revenue Appellate Authority and the reply filed by them before the Board of Revenue in the second appeal dated 21.06.1986, 02.08.1986 and 14.12.1993 respectively. Till date, compliance of the above stated orders has not been made." 44. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the injunction suit is concerned, the same has been wrongly dismissed in default whereby, the option of possession rests upon framing issues in the concerned Khasra No.192 (old). 45. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed in Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733, to submit that the appellant was a necessary party and non impleadment of [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (16 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] necessary party was fatal to the suit which was decided on 02.08.1986 by the RAA. 46. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents vehemently raised the arguments and the facts were concealed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in Tomorrowland Ltd. Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr., (2025) 4 SCC 19. 47. He stresses on fairness in litigation and submitted that the litigation initiated by the respondents was frivolous and deserves to be condemned. Learned counsel placed reliance on Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. UOI & Ors., (2014) 8 SCC 470. 48. On behalf of the contesting respondents it is submitted that the land which was acquired from Khasra Nos. 203 and 204 as per the notification dated 14.05.1984 was for 19 bigha and 4 biswa only. The same has not been challenged by the respondents. The land of 19 bigha and 4 biswa already vests with the State, who had transferred the same to RIICO. 49. Learned counsel submits that so far as the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents relating to 3 bigha and 4 biswa of land is concerned, the same is not part of the land transferred to RIICO and therefore, the RIICO has no basis for claiming 3 bigha and 4 biswa of land as no money has been paid with respect to 3 bigha and 4 biswa of land to the land owner, nor the possession of 3 bigha and 4 biswa was ever taken from the respondents as could not have been possibly done, since the notification only related to acquiring 19 bigha and 4 biswa. [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (17 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] 50. Learned counsel further submits that as regards the State of Rajasthan is concerned, it had in the year 1986 post claim over the entire land measuring 22 bigha and 8 biswa instead of 19 bigha and 4 biswa resulting in litigation which ended in a declaration of 3 bigha and 4 biswa of land in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. It is submitted that so far as the State is concerned, they have not challenged the final adjudication and it has attained finality. 51. He also submits that so far as RIICO is concerned, it cannot claim better title than what the State had claimed. The judgment passed by the SDO dated 02.11.2004 was not challenged by the State before the Divisional Commissioner and the appeal preferred by the RIICO stood dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 26.06.2006. The second appeal preferred by RIICO already stood dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 24.07.2007. The RIICO thereafter has filed writ petition before this Court not only assailing the judgment dated 24.07.2007, but also the judgment dated 14.12.1993 which attained finality long back. 52. It is submitted that RIICO neither has a right to challenge the order dated 14.12.1993, nor it could take up the challenge after a delay of 14 years as it was hopelessly time barred. When the RIICO attempted to interrupt the peaceful possession of the khatedars of their property admeasuring 3 bigha and 4 biswa, preliminary injunction decree was passed on 07.01.1989 by the ACM, Jaipur. The appeal filed by the appellant-RIICO was also dismissed by the RAA. In second appeal, the Board of Revenue, vide its judgment dated 10.06.1997 remitted the matter back to [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (18 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] ACM accepting the prayer of the RIICO to amend its written statement with permission to the khatedar/plaintiffs to file rejoinder by 24.07.1997. The delay in filing the rejoinder was condoned by the trial Court on cost of Rs.500/-, which was challenged by the RIICO in Revision and Board of Revenue enhanced the cost from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000/- for filing of rejoinder. The Board of Revenue preferred Writ Petition No.2036/2008 without explaining any reason of challenging the same in the writ petition. 53. Learned counsel submits that the appellant's Writ Petition No.2036/2008 was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, prays that both the appeals be accordingly dismissed. 54. We have considered the submissions. 55. We find that the contentions raised by RIICO before this Court virtually attempt to challenge the original judgment passed by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 02.08.1986 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed in the favour holding that during the settlement operation, the land of Khasra Nos.203 and 204 had actually been reduced. The same land, therefore, would continue to remain in the name of the original khatedars admeasuring 3 bigha and 4 biswa. The State had challenged the said findings of the RAA which too attained finality. Therefore, once the State appeal against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority and against the Board of Revenue attained finality, and the order dated 04.12.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue was not challenged by the State Government [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (19 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] before the High Court, there was no occasion for allowing RIICO to initiate separate proceedings. 56. So far as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is concerned, once Section 4(1) notification has been issued and thereafter award has been passed on the said basis, the actual land which is mentioned in the notification as per the measurements would be said to have been acquired. If there is any additional land present on the site, the same cannot be treated to have been acquired. Law in this regard is well settled in (2005) 13 SCC 682: DDA Vs. Samey Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., in which it was held as under: "5. ..........We are satisfied that if a declaration published in the Official Gazette under Section 6(2) of the Act does not include the land in question, it cannot be urged later that the said land was, in fact, acquired since the said plot of land was notified for acquisition in the notification published under Section 4, though not included in the declaration notified under section 6(2) of the Act. The notification which has to be issued by the State under Section 6(2) incorporating the declaration made under Section 6(1), if for the purpose of notice to the public at large so that the persons concerned may exercise their rights under the Act, of claiming higher compensation and/or of seeking a reference to a court in case they are not satisfied with the award declared by the Collector." 57. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the land is shown by stating its revenue number, the entire land in the revenue number would stand acquired. There is a possibility where, in a particular revenue, if only part of the land which is acquired would be treated to vest with the State, remaining land would continue to be in possession and entitlement with the concerned khatedar. 58. In the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Abdul Ali and Ors.: (2017) 3 SCC 108, where a similar issue was raised by State, it has been held as under: [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (20 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] "3. It is not in dispute that the disputed property was not part of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") and naturally, not a part of Section 6 declaration as well. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the award was announced on 9-8-1989, covering the entire area including the disputed property. Realising that there was no notification in respect of the disputed property issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, corrigenda were issued on 17-12-1992 and 16-6- 1993, including the disputed property under Section 4 and Section 6 Notification and Declaration originally issued on 16- 3-1989 and 5-4-1989 respectively. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the steps thus taken by them have cured the defective procedure adopted in the acquisition. 4. We are afraid that the contentions raised by the appellants cannot be appreciated. Once the award is passed, there is no question of any correction in the notification under Section 4(1) or declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Act, under Section 13-A provides for correction of clerical mistakes in the award and that too only within six months. There is no question of an award being passed in respect of a property, for which there is no notification under section 4(1) and consequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. However, we make it clear that this judgment shall not stand in the way of the appellants, if so advised, in initiating acquisition proceedings afresh in respect of the disputed property in accordance with law. No costs." 59. The aforesaid two judgments, therefore, clinch the issue and the submission raised by the appellant, therefore, is found to be without merits and in such circumstances where the award has been passed mentioning of the area of the land acquired which admittedly is 19 bigha and 3 biswas, the remaining land would, therefore, continue to vest in the original khatedars. 60. Further attempt has been made on behalf of the appellant to submit that the decree determining area rights behind RIICO's back would be a nullity, the same is also found to be misconceived. So far as the land is concerned, after the abrogation of Article 31 of the Constitution of India, all the land vests in the State and it is the State who has the power to acquire land of any khatedar. In the present case, the acquisition was [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (21 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] undertaken by the State and the RIICO is merely the agency to which the land has been transferred for the purposes which were mentioned while acquiring the land. It does not get independent ownership of the land. RIICO was, therefore, not a necessary party to the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and in their absence, the findings of the suit cannot be set aside. 61. We further notice that so far as the State is concerned, they have not challenged the judgment passed in second appeal dated 14.12.1993 wherein the finding was arrived at that the plaintiffs are khatedar tenants of the land bearing khasra Nos.203 and 204. 62. Recently, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2963/2023: Bishambhar Prasad Vs. M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. decided on 20.04.2023, in para 51 and 52 held as under: "51. We have no reason to doubt that Rule 11A, per se, does not advance the cause of Respondent No.1 for the reason that Respondent No.1 has merely stepped into the shoes of JKSL and lease deeds were executed in the year 2007 directly by the State Government in favour of Respondent No.1, without resorting to Rule 11A, namely, through RIICO. Had it been a case of executing of fresh lease deeds in favour of Respondent No.1 by RIICO in 2007, it could be convincingly argued that such allotment was in furtherance of the authorization conferred on RIICO under Rule 11A. The facts do not bear out such an eventuality. 52. That apart, the plain wording of Rule 11A clearly shows that the Corporation can have merely managerial power over the land that is allocated to it. As laid down very clearly under Rule 11A, the allotment to RIICO is done purely on a leasehold basis, and ownership and title remain unequivocally with the State Government. RIICO acts as nothing but an agent of the State in its efforts to increase industrial production and further economic progress. The State remains the overarching power in this dynamic and RIICO remains subservient to it." 63. Hence, the RIICO cannot be said to have a better title than that of the State. Once, the State itself has agreed to treat the land as being more than what was notified for acquisition, the [2026:RJ-JP:9358-DB] (22 of 22) [SAW-1925/2008] remaining land measuring 3 bigha 4 biswa would, therefore, continue to remain with the khatedar. 64. We are also not impressed by further submission of the learned counsel for the RIICO that the land has been handed over/transferred in the name of other persons by original khatedars. Civil Procedure Code recognizes transfer of property during pendency of the suit. However, in the present case, we find that the suit between the State and the concerned khatedars had attained finality. Transfer of his rights by the concerned khatedar to any subsequent party would not weaken the case of the plaintiffs-respondents and the RIICO would not have any right to claim the land which was not part of the land which it has received by way of acquisition from the State, nor it has any right on the additional land as declared by the Revenue Court. 65. So far as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1926/2008 is concerned, the same has been otiose after the main injunction suit itself has been dismissed. 66. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 67. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Govind/Gaurav/2-3