Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ajij Khan And Ors vs State And Ors on 22 July, 2026
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1975/2011
CNR: RJHC010012662011
URN: SAW / 4552U / 2011
1. Ajij Khan S/o Shri Murad Khan
2. Late Longe Khan S/o Shri Aamad Khan through LRs
2/1 Rahima W/o Shri Longe Khan
2/2 Yasir Khan
2/3 Yar Mohd.
2/4 Sone Khan
2/5 Moldin
2/6 Aadt Khan
2/7 Sher Khan
3. Late Dine Khan S/o Aamd Khan through LRs
3/1 Mariyam W/o late Dine Khan
3/2 Isak
3/3 Fattan
4. Gaji Khan S/o Shri Aamd Khan
5. Sharif Khan S/o Shri Aamd Khan
6. Late Gagan Khan S/o Late Shri Aamd Khan through LRs
6/1 Sohini W/o Late Gagan Khan
6/2 Gulsher Khan
6/3 Surjan Khan
7. Late Shri Sadak Khan S/o Late Aamd Khan through LRs
7/1 Maluk Khan
7/2 Bage Khan
7/3 Subhan Khan
7/4 Khan Mohd.
7/5 Karim Khan
8. Maluk Khan S/o Shri Sadak Khan
9. lasin Khan S/o Longe Khan
10. Rasul Khan S/o Sank Khan
11. Late Futan Khan S/o Shr Mangal Khan through LRs
11/1 Hamir Khan
11/2 Resham Khan
11/3 Hindal Khan
11/4 Aaldin Khan S/o Late Shri Futan Khan
12. Hamir Khan S/o Futan Khan
13. Resham Khan S/o Futan Khan
14. Mishri Khan S/o Mohd. Khan
15. Late Shri Raje Khan S/o Shri Mohd. Khan through LRs
15/1 Shafiyat Bewa Raje Khan
15/2 Feze Khan
15/3 Kambhir Khan
15/4 Dose Khan S/o Late Shri Raje Khan
16. Abdul Khan S/o Mohd. Khan
17. Late Shri Sayne Khan S/o Sumar Khan through LRs
17/1 Rupa W/o Late Shri Sayne Khan
17/2 Ladu Khan
17/3 Sher Khan
17/4 Surjan Khan
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (2 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
17/5 Alayar Khan
17/6 Magne Khan
17/7 Mthar Khan S/o Late Shri Sayne Khan
18. Sharif Khan S/o Shri Sumar Khan
19. Late Shri Hakim Khan S/o Sumar Khan through LRs
19/1 Purande Khan S/o Hakim Khan
19/2 Husain Khan
19/3 Jame Khan
19/4 Hasan Khan S/o Hakim Khan
20. Husain Khan S/o Hakim Khan
21. Jamme Khan S/o Hakim Khan
22. Late Shri Serdin S/o Ali Khan through LRs
22/1 Shafi Khan S/o Late Shri Serdin
23. Ali Khan S/o Sumar Khan
24. Meere Khan S/o Shri Ali Khan
25. Nibab Khan S/o Sumar Khan
26. Alabacnaye Khan S/o Shri Ali Khan
27. Late Shri Natthe Khan S/o Dawat Khan through LRs
27/1 Bakse Khan
27/2 Dine Khan
28. Dine Khan S/o Natthe Khan
29. Saleman Khan S/o Khudabak
30. Late Shri Ijate Khan S/o Shikiye Khan through LRs
30/1 Jamme Khan
30/2 Jiwane Khan
30/3 Ladu Khan
30/4 Jaan Mohd.
30/5 Ramjaan S/o Shri ljate Khan
31. Jiwane Khan S/o ljate Khan
32. Ladu Khan S/o Shri Ijate Khan
33. Abdul Khan S/o Alayne Khan
34. Late Shri Aajim S/o Shri Muse Khan through LRs
34/1 Nihali W/o Late Shri Aajim Khan
34/2 Gaji Khan
34/3 Aamad Khan
34/4 Jameshah Khan
35. Lukman S/o Shri Kamal Khan
36. Ishak Khan S/o Lukman Khan
37. Jiraj S/o Shri Allabaks Khan
38. Late Shri Alayne Khan S/o Ratnu Khan through LRs
38/1 Rahmat W/o Late Shri Alayne Khan
38/2 Khere Khan S/o Shri Alayne Khan
39. Khere Khan S/o Alayne Khan
40. Late Shri Resham Khan S/o Kayam Khan through LRs
40/1 Sahibi W/o Late Shri Resham Khan
40/2 Dayma Khan
40/3 Chandane Khan
40/4 Shoraab Khan S/o Late Resham Khan
40/5 Dilbar S/o Resham Khan
41. Dayam Khan S/o Resham Khan
42. Dilbar Khan S/o Resham Khan
43. Jamaal Khan S/o Laakhe Khan
44. Pathan Khan S/o Laakhe Khan
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (3 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
45. Jaangi Khan S/o Laakhe Khan
46. Sadi Khan S/o Laakhe Khan
47. Sawai S/o Jamaal Khan
48. Sakhi Khan S/o Maru Khan
49. Late Shri Maane Khan S/o Mamud Khan through LRs
49/1 Aalmi W/o Late Shri Maane Khan
49/2 Nabibaks
49/3 Alsher
49/4 Meer Khan
49/5 Sher Khan S/o Late Shri Maane Khan
50. Pirane Khan S/o Maane Khan
51. Late Shri Nagedar Khan S/o Maane Khan through LRs
51/1 Ibrahim Khan
51/2 Rane Khan S/o Nagodhar Khan
52. Late Shri Nabibaks S/o Maane Khan through LRs
52/1 Mirgai W/o Late Shri Nabibaks Khan
52/2 Imamdin
52/3 Wilal Khan
52/4 Bhure Khan
52/5 Ise Khan
53. Late Shri Ridmal S/o Momdu Khan through LRs
53/1 Dhula W/o Late Shri Ridam
53/2 Mauldin
53/3 Mube Khna
53/4 Goram Khan S/o Ridmal Khan through LRs
53/4/1 Jummi W/o Shri Goram Khan
53/4/2 Ishan Khan S/o Shri Goram Khan
54. Male Khan S/o Mahmud Khan
55. Late Shri Dite Khan S/o Mahmud Khan through LRs
55/1 Sabira W/o Dite Khan
55/2 Imamdin S/o Dite Khan
55/3 Use Khan S/o Dite Khan
56. Marush Khan S/o Shri Murad Khan
57. Mahendra Khan S/o Mane Khan
58. Late Shri Kasam Khan S/o Aalaabraye Khan through LRs
58/1 Jami W/o Aalaabraye Khan
58/2 Mithe Khan S/o Aalaabraye Khan
58/3 Mauldin S/o Aalaabraye Khan
58/4 Idhan Khan S/o Aalaabraye Khan
59. Hasm Khan S/o Shri Alabaraye Khan
60. Baks Khan S/o Natthe Khan
61. Amir Khan S/o Vishne Khan
62. Noordin S/o Vishne Khan
63. Saleman S/o Amir Khan
64. Saradin S/o Amir Khan
65. Mehrdin S/o Amir Khan
66. Gafur S/o Shri Amir Khan
67. Akbar S/o Badan Khan
68. Late Shri Meer Mohd. S/o Badan Khan through LRs
68/1 Aaysha W/o Shri Meer Mohd.
68/2 Rauf Khan S/o Shri Meer Mohd.
68/3 Bashi Khan S/o Shri Meer Mohd.
68/4 Vahid Khan S/o Meer Mohd.
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (4 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
69. Ratan S/o Jaimal Khan
70. Gulam S/o Jaimal Khan
71. Late Shri Jaimal Khan through LRs
71/1 Asiyat Bewa W/o Jaimal Khan
71/2 Saraadin
71/3 Mehardin
71/4 Kherdin
72. Late Shri Chane Khan S/o Aadat Khan through LRs
72/1 Mishra W/o Late Shri Chane Khan
72/2 Sodhe Khan
72/3 Noore Khan
73. Late Shri Jaam Khan S/o Aalam Khan through LRs
73/1 Khete Khan S/o Late Shri Jaam Khan
74. Khete Khan S/o Jaam Khan
75. Sumar Khan S/o Aalam Khan
76. Mehardin S/o Bachche Khan
77. Baks Khan S/o Bchaye Khan
78. Laldin S/o Bachche Khan
79. Late Nidam Khan S/o Shri Bachche Khan through LRs
79/1 Amri W/o Late Nidam Khan
79/2 Jumme Khan
79/3 lkhu Khan
80. Sodhe Khan S/o Chane Khan
81. Noore Khan S/o Chane Khan
82. Late Shri Miye Khan S/o Marakh Khan through LRs
82/1 Muse Khan
82/2 Ilamdin
83. Tayar Khan S/o Shri Maluk Khan
84. Poonu Khan S/o Maluk Khan
85. Mishri S/o Maluk Khan
86. Sayri S/o Tayar Khan
87. Hakim S/o Tayar Khan
88. Late Shri Badal Khan S/o Naare Khan through LRs
88/1 Sahjan W/o Late Shri Badal Khan
89. Jalal S/o Alarakh Khan
90. Late Shri Alarakh Khan S/o Soharaab Khan through LRs
90/1 Hasain Khan
90/2 Jalaal Khan
91. Husain Khan S/o Alarakh Khan
92. Gaji Khan S/o Hasal Khan
93. Late Shri Hasal Khan S/o Dawat Khan through LRs
93/1 Gaji Khan S/o Late Shri Hasal Khan
94. Late Shri Latib S/o Ibre Khan through LRs
94/1 Amri W/o Late Shri Latib
95. Tajmon S/o Shri Kherdin
96. Nasir S/o Roje Khan
97. Late Shri Same Khan S/o Kale Khan through LRs
97/1 Pirane Khan S/o Same Khan
98. Late Shri Laldin S/o Sultan khan through LRs
98/1 Saheb Khan
98/2 Hanif Khan
98/3 Ishak
98/4 Ajij
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (5 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
98/5 Imamdin
99. Hanif S/o Laldin
100. Ata Mohd. S/o Same Khan
101. Late Shri Same Khan S/o Shri Aadam Khan through LRs
101/1 Aalmi W/o Shri Same Khan
101/2 Ata Mohd.
101/3 Kayamdin
101/4 Taaj Mohd.
101/5 Noordin
101/6 Safi Mohd.
102. Taaj Mohd. S/o Same Khan
103. Late Shri Noordin S/o Same Khan through LRs
103/1 Ajmat
103/2 Mujafar
103/3 Salaam S/o Noordin
104. Kayamdin S/o Same Khan
105. Late Shri Jasma W/o Maluk Ke through LRs
105/1 Sale Mohd. S/o Shri Jama Ke through LRs
105/2 Husain S/o Sale Mohd.
106. Ata Mohd. S/o Sumer Khan
107. Aamdin S/o Sumer Khan
108. Naine Khan S/o Sumre Khan
109. Kayamdin S/o Sumre Khan
110. Late Shri Dule Kham S/o Bali Khan through LRs
110/1 Mima W/o Dule Khan
110/2 Iliyas
110/3 Hasam
111. Late Shri Sabira W/o Shri Sumare Khan through LRs
111/1 Ata Mohd.
111/2 Naine Khan
111/3 Aamdin
111/4 Kayamdin
112. Latif S/o Aarab Khan
113. Sarif S/o Aarab Khan
114. Dine Khan S/o Bariyaam Khan
115. Late Shri Haji Khan S/o Lakhe Khan through LRs
115/1 Hakim Khan
115/2 Laakhe Khan
116. Jame Khan S/o Dawad Khan
117. Moyab Khan S/o Dawad Khan
118. Late Shri Chhute Khan S/o Dawad Khan through LRs
118/1 Dine Khan
118/2 Taje Khan
119. Taj Mohd. S/o Shri Chhute Khan
120. Ummed Ali S/o Sultan Khan
121. Rahim S/o Sultan Khan
122. Nijam S/o Nage Khan
123. Kayamdin S/o Nage Khan
124. Kherdin S/o Shobhe Khan
125. Meer Mohd. S/o Haale Khan
126. Amir S/o Hale Khan
127. Nasir S/o Mumbe Khan
128. Saradin S/o Mumbe Khan
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (6 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
129. Ajij Khan S/o Bhale Khan
130. Sadik S/o Mumbe Khan
131. Late Kami W/o Joge Khan through LRs
131/1 Nibab Khan
132. Nawab Khan S/o Joge Khan
133. Noore Khan S/o Joge Khan
134. Bhikhe Khan S/o Khete Khan
135. Late Shri Haji Khan S/o Mehtaab Khan through LRs
135/1 Alarkhi W/o Late Shri Haji Khan
135/2 Nase Khan
135/3 Saau
135/4 Ate Khan
136. Late Shri Mishri Khan S/o Sumer Khan through LRs
136/1 Ummed W/o Mishri Khan
All the petitioners through their power of attorney holder
Mahammad Saabir S/o Late Haji Anwar Hussain aged about 30
Years R/o Khanda Falsa Nayi Gali, Jodhpur
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Jaisalmer
2. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer
3. The Tehsildar (Land Record) Jaisalmer
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer
5. Late Brijraj Singh Ji, through his legal heirs
(Representatives):
R/5/1- Mukutrajya Laxmi W/o Late Shri Maharawal Shri
Raghunath Singh Ji (Mother)
R/5/2- Raseshwari Rajyalaxmi W/o His Highness
Maharawal Shri Brijraj Singh Ji.
R/5/3- Chaitanya Raj Singh S/o His Highness
Maharawal Shri Brijraj Singh Ji.
R/5/4- Janmejay Raj Singh S/o His Highness Maharawal
Shri Brijraj Singh Ji.
6. Prithviraj Singh S/o Raghunath Singh
7. Smt. Mukatrajya Laxmi W/o Raghunath Singh
8. Yadunandini D/o Raghunath Singh
9. Chandra Kanwar D/o Raghunath Singh
10. Rashmi Kumar D/o Raghunath Singh
11. Sushma Kumari D/o Raghunath Singh
(Respondent No. 5-11 are the legal representatives of the
Erstwhile Ruler of Jaisalmer, Shri Raghunath Singh) R/o
Hanuman Choraha Jaisalmer
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1348/2011
CNR: RJHC010010072010
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (7 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
URN: SAW / 3145U / 2011
The State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer.
----Appellant
Versus
Legal Representatives of Shri Raghunath Singh S/o Shri Girdhar
Singh, Ex-ruler of Jaisalmer:-
1. Brijraj Singh S/o Shri Raghunath Singh through his legal heirs
(Representatives)
R/1/1- Mukutrajya Laxmi W/o Late Shri Maharawal Shri
Raghunath Singh Ji (Mother).
R/1/2- Raseshwari Rajyalaxmi W/o His Highness Maharawal
Shri Brijraj Singh Ji (Wife).
R/1/3- Chaitanya Raj Singh S/o His Highness Maharawal
Shri Brijraj Singh Ji (Son).
R/1/4- Janmejay Raj Singh S/o His Highness Maharawal
Shri Brijraj Singh Ji (Son).
All are residents of Mandir Palace, Jaisalmer.
2. Prithviraj Singh S/o Shri Raghunath Singh.
3. Smt. Mukutrajya Laxmi W/o Shri Raghunath Singh.
4. Ms. Yadunandini.
5. Ms. Chandra Kanwar.
6. Ms. Rashmi Kumari.
7. Ms. Sushma Kumari
Respondents No. 4 to 7 D/o Shri Raghunath Singh by caste
Rajput R/o Jaisalmer.
8. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Ms. Aditi Sharma and Ms. Kanchan
Kanwar Jodha
Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Rajeev Purohit
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG
Mr. Kunal Updhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kamini Joshi
Mr. Devesh A Purohit
Mr. Siddharth Mehra (through VC)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
Date of conclusion of arguments:- 09.07.2026
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (8 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
Date on which the judgment was Reserved:- 09.07.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced:- Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement:- 22.07.2026
Per: Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
(Both the appeals are being decided together.)
In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1348/2011
1. The appellant-State has challenged the impugned judgments
passed by the Board of Revenue dated 09.06.2009, as well as
order dated 16.07.2010 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition
No.10943/2009, vide which the decision of the Board of Revenue
was upheld.
2. The Board of Revenue, in the impugned judgment dated
09.06.2009, disallowed the reference made by the District
Collector, Jaisalmer, for correcting the settlement entries
concerning the disputed property.
3. The learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the appellant-
State, disputes the conclusions of the Courts, emphasizing that
the pasture land listed in the inventory cannot be legitimately
entered in the names of the respondents under Section 6 of the
Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land-Owners Estates
Act, 1963 (For brevity, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of
1963’), read with the bar contained under Section 16 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (For brevity, hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act of 1955′). The Settlement Department erred by
entering the respondents’ names in the Jamabandi. The learned
A.A.G. also challenged the findings whereby the Board of Revenue
held that the State failed to demonstrate under which law the
inventory was prepared. It is strongly contended that, in reference
to the Board of Revenue, the District Collector, in its order dated
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (9 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
25.04.1989, specifically mentioned that the entries concerning the
disputed property, in relation to the Act of 1963 and the Act of
1955, exclude the pasture land from being recorded as Khatedari
land. Conversely, the Board of Revenue noted that bl buosVa jh
esa ;g oknxzLr vkjkth ,oa 26 sq mile dh vkjkth ds laca/k esa fy[kk x;k
gS fd “The Ruler will have the rights to graze his cattle in an area
of 46 Sq. miles described below – (a) Basanpir- 20 Sq. miles, (b)
Dewa – 20 Sq. miles (c) Bhadwar 6 Sq. miles.”
lkFk gh ;g Hkh fy[kk gqvk gS fd “There is no objection to His
Highness having fodder cut and stored in the area of 46 Sq. miles
allotted to him.”, thereby acknowledging the existence.
4. Furthermore, the learned AAG questions the dismissal of the
reference on the grounds of res judicata and delay and, in support
of the arguments, places reliance upon the Full Bench Judgment
passed in the matter of Tara & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan &
Anr. AIR 2015 RAJ 179 (FB).
5. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajesh Joshi, representing
the respondent, supports and justifies the findings of both Courts
and contends that the Tehsildar should not have referred the
matter to the District Collector, as it was barred by res judicata
and further inordinately delayed.
6. Before outlining the issues at hand, it is pertinent to describe
the factual background.
7. The matter was referred by the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, in 1983,
under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, to the Board
of Revenue, Ajmer, seeking correction of an error committed by
the Settlement Department. The assertion was that, in the
inventory prepared under Section 2 of the Act of 1963, the land
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (10 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
was recorded as “The Ruler will have the rights to graze his cattle
in an area of 46 Sq. miles described below – (a) Basanpir- 20 Sq.
miles, (b) Dewa – 20 Sq. miles (c) Bhadwar 6 Sq. miles. There is
no objection to His Highness having fodder cut and stored in the
area of 46 Sq. miles allotted to him.”, and in the settlement record
it was wrongly entered to show the respondents as Khatedar.
According to the Act of 1955, land cannot be entered as Khatedari
land in this manner. The reference was subsequently withdrawn on
18th January 1984 because a stay was in effect by the High Court.
8. Subsequently, the District Collector, Jaisalmer, after the
withdrawal of the first reference, received a second reference from
the Tehsildar reiterating the earlier claim. The District Collector
observed that under the inventory prepared under Section 2 of the
1963 Act, the disputed land was shown as “Pasture Land”, and in
accordance with Section 16 of the 1955 Act, the land had been
incorrectly entered as Khatedari land.
9. The Collector subsequently referred the matter to the Board
of Revenue. In the judgment dated 30.08.1991, the Board of
Revenue accepted the reference; however, it did not address the
disputed land and instead concerned to the other properties.
Respondents then challenged this decision before the Division
Bench by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 466/1992. During the
pendency of the writ petition, an application for correction of the
judgment was filed before the Board of Revenue, which allowed
the correction by order dated 18.06.1997. This correction
explicitly included the disputed property within the reference.
10. The Division Bench, vide order dated 10.08.1999,
considering the aforementioned order and the order under
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (11 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
challenge dated 30.08.1991, remanded the matter to the Board of
Revenue for a fresh decision on the reference concerning the
disputed property.
11. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference vide impugned
judgment holding that, apart from the inventory, no other
effective document has been produced in the file of the
subordinate Court on behalf of the State Government or the
opposite parties.
12. The Board also inferred that in the revenue jamabandis from
Vikram Samvat 2041 to 2044 (1984-1987 as per Gregorian
Calendar) and from Vikram Samvat 2029 (1972- as per Gregorian
Calendar) to Vikram Samvat 2048 (1991- as per Gregorian
Calendar), the Ex-Ruler is mentioned as the estate-holder in the
Columns 2 and 4 of the Jamabandis. The Board also concluded
that the Tehsildar has not submitted any evidence regarding the
entry made in the Khatauni from Samvat 2014 (1957-as per
Gregorian Calendar). In such circumstances, it cannot be believed
that the disputed land was actually allotted to the heirs of the Ex-
Ruler solely for grazing cattle. If this were true, the State
Government would have presented a copy of the allotment order
to the District Collector, Jaisalmer, which is not present in the file.
In the absence of the necessary documentation, it cannot be ruled
out that in the Khatauni of Vikram Samvat 2014, the note was
illegally inscribed without the order of any competent authority.
13. The appellant-State challenged this matter by filing S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 10943/2009, which was dismissed vide order
dated 16.07.2010; consequently, this appeal ensues.
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (12 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
14. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the rival
contentions and perused the material available on record.
15. It is established that following the enactment of the Act of
1963, the disputed property was recorded in the inventory as
“Pasture Land” and vested in the State. The definitions of estate,
land, landowner and inventory are clearly outlined in Sections
2(b), 2(f), 2(g), and 2(d) of the Act, respectively. A thorough
interpretation of these provisions confirms that pasture land is
inherently considered a part of the State and is vested in the State
by natural implication of the Act. An Ex-Ruler’s claim to pasture
land is strictly limited. They cannot assert rights over properties
outside those within the scope of the fort, palace, building, or
building plots and other lands which were under their cultivation.
16. Relevant part of Section 6 of the Act of 1963 reads as
follows:
“(1) Every person who, at the commencement of this Act, is or so,
entered in the revenue records as a tenant or a tenant of Khudkasht,
but not as a sub- tenant, of any land forming part of an estate shall,
unless he had become a Khatedari tenant thereof previously to such
commencement by virtue of any law or otherwise, be deemed to be
the Khatedar tenant of such land holding from the landowner of the
estate:
Provided that Khatedari rights under this sub-section shall not
accrue to any person to whom land is or has been let out temporarily
in the Gang Canal, Bhakra, Chambal, Jawai or Rajasthan Canal
Project Area, and no Khatedari rights shall accrue if the land
belongs to any of the categories specified in section 16 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.”
17. Thus, it is apparent from a bare perusal of Section 6 of the
Act of 1963 that any property mentioned in Section 16 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act shall not constitute any Khatedari rights of
Ex rulers or the persons who derived the property on their behalf.
18. In Section 16 of the Tenancy Act, it is categorically stated as
follows:-
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (13 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]“Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other law or
enactment for the time being in force in any part of the State,
Khatedari rights shall not accrue in-
(i) pasture land;
(ii) land used for casual or occasional cultivation in the bed of river
or tank;
(iii) land covered by water and used for the purpose of growing
Singhara or other like produce;
(iv) land under shifting or unstable cultivation;
(v) land comprised in gardens owned and maintained by the State
Governments;
(vi) land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public
utility;
(vii) land which, at the commencement of this Act or at any time
thereafter, is set apart for military encamping grounds;
(viii) land situated within the limits of cantonment;
(ix) land included within railway or canal boundaries;
(x) land within the boundaries of any Government forest;
(xi) municipal trenching grounds;
(xii) land held or acquired by educational institutions for purposes of
instruction in agriculture or for play- ground; and
(xiii) land within the boundaries of a Government agricultural or
grass farm;
(xiv) land which has been set apart or is, in the opinion of the
Collector, necessary for flow of water thereon in to any reservoir or
tanka for drinking water for a village or for surrounding villages:
Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette declare that any land which is under shifting or
unstable cultivation, shall cease to be a land for such cultivation and
thereupon such land shall be available for the grant of Khatedari
rights and the State Government may by a like notification, declare
that any land which was not at the commencement of this Act under
shifting or unstable cultivation shall at any time after such
commencement be under such cultivation from such date as may be
specified in the notification and thereupon such land shall be
available for such cultivation.”
19. Furthermore, Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 and Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rules, 1955, explicitly
authorise the setting a part of pasture land for specific purposes,
but they exclude Khatedari rights over such land. The Board of
Revenue, in paragraph 18(4) of the impugned judgment, clearly
acknowledged that both parties agree on the inventory, which is
undisputed. Nonetheless, the Board wrongly concluded that the
Khatauni of Vikram Samvat 2014, which underpins the inventory
note, remains unproven. This flaw is evident for several reasons:
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (14 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]firstly, there is no dispute regarding the authenticity of the
inventory, which is an admitted document. Secondly, even if the
Vikram Samvat 2014 document were unproven, the enactment of
the Act of 1963 inherently affirms the classification of the land as
pasture in the inventory. Thirdly, the inventory does not specify
that the entry related to pasture land was based on the Khatauni
of Vikram Samvat 2014. The Board of Revenue’s analogy, citing
the Jamabandi of Vikram Samvat 2014 (corresponding to 1957),
to challenge the State’s rights over the disputed land, is
fundamentally flawed. After the enactment of the Act of 1963, its
regulations now unequivocally govern the matter. This Act
explicitly limits the rights over lands previously held by former
Rulers and their heirs. The other documents relied upon by the
Board of Revenue were created post-1963 Act, with entries in the
Jamabandi ranging from Vikram Samvat 2029 to 2048, which are
wholly irrelevant.
20. Moreover, the impugned judgments fail to consider Section 6
of the Act of 1963 in conjunction with Section 16 of the Act of
1955. Section 16 of the Act of 1955 explicitly overrides any
conflicting provisions of other Acts. Even if official records classify
the property as private, that classification does not automatically
establish the respondent’s ownership rights. Importantly, land
designated and used as pasture cannot legally be converted into
Khatedari or Khudkasht land under any circumstances, as such
conversion is expressly prohibited by law.
21. Regarding the applicability of the principle of res judicata, it
is undeniable that the earlier reference made by the Tehsildar to
the Board of Revenue was withdrawn and that the rights of the
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (15 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
parties were never finally adjudicated. For res judicata to apply,
there must be a final judicial determination on the merits of the
dispute. A mere withdrawal without a formal judgment clearly
indicates that the matter was not “heard and finally decided.”
Furthermore, if the authority or State withdraws a reference, the
underlying cause of action for administrative correction remains
valid if it complies with the law. The Supreme Court, in Union of
India and others v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, 1996 (7)
SCC 542, explicitly held that the summary dismissal of a case
does not amount to res judicata. Accordingly, both Courts erred in
applying the principles of res judicata.
22. Lastly, the respondents defend the judgment, stating that
the reference was made belatedly and rightly rejected. The
counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Tara & Ors. vs
State of Rajasthan & Anr. (ibid), in which it was held that a
reference can be made within a reasonable time and the same will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The only
restriction imposed is regarding the filing of the reference after
several decades. In the instant matter, the settlement procedure
commenced in the year 1963 and concluded in 1974. The first
reference culminated without any decisive adjudication due to
withdrawal and the subsequent reference was initiated in the year
1986. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, we do not
find that reference is inordinately delayed.
23. In the premise, the instant appeal is allowed. Consequently,
the judgment dated 09.06.2009 passed by the Board of Revenue
and the order dated 16.07.2010 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 10943/2009 are hereby set aside. The entries made in respect
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (16 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
of the disputed land be corrected in accordance with the factual
position indicated in the order passed by the District Collector,
Jaisalmer dated 25.04.1989. The parties shall bear the cost of the
litigation on their own. The record of the case should be sent to
the Board of Revenue immediately, along with a copy of the
instant order to proceed further in accordance with the law.
24. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1975/2011
25. This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 10.10.2011
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 581/2011, vide which the
appellants’ challenge to the rejection of their plea to be impleaded
as a party in the reference proceedings before the Board of
Revenue was dismissed.
26. It is unequivocally established that the reference sent by the
Collector to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act involved a narrow dispute centred on
the entries in the revenue records concerning the respondent’s
claimed rights. The Board of Revenue’s jurisdiction was limited to
determining whether the correctness of these entries impacted the
State and the respondents. The appellants are neither claimants
to the disputed land nor essential to the adjudication of the
primary issue between the State and the respondents.
27. Legal principles are clear that, under Order I Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a person or group may be
impleaded as a party if their rights are directly affected. Their
inclusion is necessary for a comprehensive resolution, enabling the
Court to pass an effective decree.
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31763-DB] (17 of 17) [SAW-1975/2011]
28. A thorough review of the record confirms that the appellants
are neither necessary nor proper parties in this matter. The Board
of Revenue’s rejection of their application under Order I Rule 10 of
the CPC is justified. Moreover, the rejection of the appellants’ writ
petition challenging the Board’s order is entirely consistent with
legal requirements.
29. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
30. All pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
KP Singh Dewasi / Dhananjay Sharma
(Uploaded on 22/07/2026 at 04:03:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/07/2026 at 11:16:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
