Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Limba (2026:Rj-Jd:13556) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13556]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18292/2018
State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Limba S/o Udaji Gameti, Residing At Bujhada, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Upvan Sanrakshak North, Forest Division North, Range
East, Gulbaug, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, G.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
12/03/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed by Petitioner-State
against order dated 05.07.2017 passed by Board of Revenue,
Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby second appeal preferred by
Respondent No. 1 under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue
Act, 1956 (“LR Act”) was allowed and order dated 30.09.2010
passed by Additional Collector, Girwa, District Udaipur as well as
order dated 29.09.2011 passed by Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Udaipur were set aside.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that land bearing Arazi
No. 10, admeasuring 2 bighas, and Arazi No.17, admeasuring 1
bigha 10 biswas, situated at village Bujhada, Tehsil Girwa, District
Udaipur, was allotted to Respondent No. 1 vide allotment order
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (2 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
dated 13.02.1983 passed by District Collector, Udaipur. Pursuant
thereto, said land was registered in revenue records in the name
of Respondent No. 1 through Mutation No. 710 dated 31.12.1983.
2.1 Subsequently, during resettlement, earlier revenue entries
came to be altered, as a result of which Araziat constituting the
land in question were recorded as Belanaam and Mahakma
Jangalat, and name of Respondent No. 1 was not reflected in the
revenue record. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 moved an
application under Section 136 of the LR Act seeking correction of
revenue entries on the basis of aforementioned allotment order
dated 13.02.1983 and Mutation No. 710 dated 31.12.1983.
2.2 Said application of Respondent No.1 was dismissed by
Additional Collector, Girwa, vide order dated 30.09.2010, on the
ground that applicant / Respondent No. 1 had failed to produce
any documentary evidence to establish his rights over the land in
question or to prove his possession thereon.
2.3 Against said order dated 30.09.2010, Respondent No. 1
preferred an appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Udaipur, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2011. It
was observed that the allotment of 1983 to appellant-respondent
No. 1 was subject to certain conditions and that appellant had not
produced any documentary evidence to prove the fulfillment of
said conditions. In absence of the same, Additional Divisional
Commissioner held that continuous and uninterrupted possession
of appellant was not established.
2.4 Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred a second appeal before
Board of Revenue, which, vide order dated 05.07.2017, allowed
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (3 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
the appeal, set aside orders passed by the courts below and
directed restoration of name of Respondent No. 1 in the revenue
record in respect of the land in question. It was held that in view
of the material available on record, possession and right of
Respondent no. 1 over the land in question stood duly established.
2.5 Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner-State has preferred present
writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State, Sanjay Raj Paliwal,
GC, submits that Board of Revenue has erred in interfering with
concurrent findings recorded by courts below. It is contended that
during resettlement proceedings the land in question came to be
recorded as Belanaam Kism Pahad and Mahakma Jangalat in the
names of UIT, Udaipur and Forest Department, and therefore the
claim raised by Respondent No.1 does not merely involve
correction of revenue entries but rather amounts to determination
of title, which falls beyond the scope of powers exercisable under
Section 136 of the LR Act.
3.1 It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has failed to
discharge the burden of proof and has not established his
possession over the land in question. According to learned
counsel, the courts below had rightly concluded that Respondent
No.1 had failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to
establish his rights over the land in question. It is therefore
submitted that impugned order passed by Board of Revenue is
illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (4 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1
supported order passed by Board of Revenue and opposed present
writ petition.
4.1 It was submitted that the land in question was lawfully
allotted in favour of Respondent No. 1 by District Collector,
Udaipur, vide order dated 13.02.1983, pursuant to
recommendation of Land Allotment Committee. It was further
submitted that possession of land was delivered to Respondent
No. 1 on 16.02.1983 (Possession Delivery Report of Patwari
annexed as R/1/2), and mutation no. 710 was accordingly
attested in favor of Respondent No. 1 on 16.02.1983 (Annexure-
R/1/3). Learned counsel also submitted that after allotment was
implemented and mutation was sanctioned, name of Respondent
No.1 continued to appear in revenue records for several years and
the land remained in his possession. To establish the same,
respondent No.1 relied upon Girdawari record of several years
(Annexure R/1/6).
4.2 It was further submitted that subsequent alteration in
revenue entries occurred during settlement proceedings, when
original Arazi numbers were subdivided and converted into new
khasra numbers, namely 98, 99, 187, 2277/175 and 100. During
this process, concerned authorities changed the revenue record
and wrongly deleted name of Respondent No. 1 as Gair Khatedar,
even though no proceedings for cancellation of allotment had ever
been initiated.
4.3 It was thus argued that Additional Collector and Additional
Divisional Commissioner failed to properly appreciate the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (5 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
documentary evidence on record and erroneously rejected the
application of Respondent No. 1. However, Board of Revenue, after
proper and thorough appreciation of the material available on
record, has rightly held that the subsequent alteration of revenue
entries during settlement proceedings was without authority of
law, which was liable to be corrected under Section 136 of the LR
Act. Thus, learned counsel submitted, there is no error in the
exercise of powers by Board of Revenue under section 136 and is
rather rooted in sound legal reasoning.
4.4 In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon order dated 24.04.2017 passed by this Court in
State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal bearing Civil Writ Petition No.
9130/2005.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. A perusal of material placed on record including allotment
order dated 13.02.1983, the Patwari inspection report dated
22.01.1983 (which notes that possession of Respondent No. 1 on
the land in question is quite old), the possession delivery report
dated 16.02.1983 and Mutation Entry No. 710 dated 31.12.1983,
clearly show that that the land in question had been lawfully
allotted to Respondent No. 1 and that his name had been duly
entered in the revenue record as Gair Khatedar.
7. It is also found established on record that during the course
of settlement proceedings, earlier Arazi numbers were subdivided
and new khasra numbers were assigned, whereupon revenue
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (6 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
entries relating to Respondent No. 1 were omitted and the land
came to be recorded as Belanaam and Mahakma Janglat.
8. In view of this proven factual position and in absence of any
material on record to show that the said allotment made in favor
of Respondent No. 1 had ever been cancelled by an order of a
competent authority, the subsequent alteration of revenue entries
during the resettlement proceedings cannot be held to be justified
in the eyes of law.
9. This Court finds that Additional Divisional Commissioner, vide
its order dated 29.09.2011 has rejected the appeal of respondent
No.2 while observing that the allotment to respondent No. 1 of the
land in question was made subject to certain conditions, however,
compliance of the same had not been established. However, there
was no material available on record to establish that any process
for cancellation of allotment was ever initiated or any formal order
for cancellation was passed. In such circumstances, an allotted
land cannot be allowed to be transferred to another person /
entity. In absence of cancellation of allotment, subsequent
alteration of revenue entries during settlement proceedings could
not have the effect of extinguishing the rights flowing from the
allotment.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondent has challenged the
exercise of powers under section 136 of the LR Act. Said provision
reads as follows: –
136. Correction of errors –
The land Records Officer may, at any time, correct or cause
to be corrected in the prescribed manner any clerical errors
and any errors which the parties interested admit to have
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (7 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
been made in the record of rights or register, or which a
Revenue Officer may notice during the course of his
inspection in any Register:
Provided that when any error is noticed by a Revenue
Officer in any record of rights during the course of his
inspection, no error shall be corrected unless a notice to
show cause has been given to the parties.
11. A plain reading of above provision makes it clear that it
empowers competent authority to correct errors in revenue
records so as to bring same in conformity with the true state of
affairs. The object of the provision is to ensure that the revenue
record correctly reflects lawful rights and orders passed by
competent authorities.
12. It is a settled principle of law that during settlement /
resettlement proceedings, revenue authorities are required to
repeat and carry forward the entries existing in the revenue
record at the time when such proceedings commence. Revenue
entries cannot be unilaterally altered in absence of any formal
order or direction of Competent Authority in that regard. The
State Government itself has issued a Circular dated 20.12.1995,
clarifying that during settlement proceedings the authorities are
required to repeat the existing entries and are not at liberty to
change them unilaterally.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has placed
reliance upon order dated 24.04.2017 passed by this Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan v. Shri Udailal & Ors. (supra),
which dealt with a similar controversy, in relation to change of
revenue entries during new settlement proceedings. The Court
has held as under: –
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (8 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]“However, both the authorities did not consider the aspect
that admittedly the allotment was made to Kamji,
predecessor of the respondents and his name was entered
in the revenue records, however, post settlement
operations, his name was deleted from the revenue records
and the land in question was recorded as Belanaam i.e.
Govt. land. Further there is also no dispute that Milan
Kshetrafal indicates that the land in possession of the
respondents forms part of the Khasra, wherein land was
allotted to the respondents and, therefore, once the
possession and the entries of Kamji in the previous
settlement is established, the burden essentially lay on the
State to indicate as to why in the new settlement, the
entries were altered and when the respondents continued to
be in possession of the land in question, the deletion of
entries cannot be supported in any manner including the
circular issued by the State dated 20.12.1995 regarding the
settlement operations.
So far as the submissions made regarding maintainability of
application under Section 136 of the Act is concerned, a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poosa Ram
(supra) relying on earlier Division Bench judgment in the
case of Jai Narain v. The Board of Revenue & Ors. : 1980
RLW 90 and State of Rajasthan v. Than Singh & Ors.: D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.163/1978, decided on 25.04.1978,
came to the conclusion that the Land Records Officer is
competent under Section 136 and 125 of the Act after the
settlement operations are over, to correct the error crept in
the record of rights during the settlement operation.
In view thereof, the submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioner-State regarding the exercise of jurisdiction
has no substance.
The law regarding the repetition of the entries at the time of
settlement is also well settled as laid down in the case of
Tehsildar, Girva v. Bhagwan & Ors.: 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.)
387, wherein it was laid down that the Settlement Officer is
not empowered to substitute the entries in the revenue
record. The judgment of Bhagwan (supra) has been
followed in the recent case of Lad Kanwar (supra).”
14. Reliance may also be placed upon judgment dated
05.01.2017 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 3588/2003 titled Lad Kanwar & Ors. v.
Board of Revenue & Ors., wherein it has been held as follows:
“At the time of recording of settlement in 1964, Ram Kishan
the defendant had stated that Manna had two sons namely(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (9 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]Gangadhar and Kailash who had gone in adoption vide a
registered “Godnama” and the Settlement Officer was made
to agree that they would produce the registered document
No. 7699 dated 28th May, 1946 in the course of time. It is
surprising that without looking at the alleged document, the
Settlement Officer had recorded a finding in favour of Ram
Kishan and that too simply on the basis of statement of
Ameen.
In the light of law laid down by this court in Tehsildar, Girva
Vs. Bhagwan & ors. (supra), the entries made at the time of
settlement cannot be considered. The Settlement Officer is
not empowered to substitute the entries in the revenue
record.”
15. In Tehsildar, Girva v. Bhagwan & Ors. reported in
2001 (4) WLC (Raj.), it has been held thus: –
“This contention in my opinion is fallacious on the facts of
the present case…The only contention throughout the
proceedings before all the authorities have been that
notwithstanding that there has been alteration in the land
records at the behest of the Settlement Officer which was
not permissible in law but since a report has been made
that land belongs to deity, the correction in the land record
is correct. No enquiry into the correctness of such report
has been made and nor any finding could be reached on
this aspect of the matter without notice to the present
claimants in any appropriate proceedings. The principle
which has been unhesitatingly accepted by all the
authorities and about which even today there is no dispute
that the Settlement Officer on his own could not alter the
existing entries except by the order of the competent
officer. However even now Mr. C.L Jain is not in a position
to produce before the Court any order of the competent
officer holding that the land in question belongs to a deity
and never belonged to the claimants and thereby ordering
the correction of the land records in accordance with that
finding. In the absence of any finding by the competent
officer in appropriate proceedings about the rights of the
said deity to hold the land against the interest of the
present claimants, it was not possible for the Settlement
Officer to have recorded the name of deity by altering the
continuity of the land record on his own.”
16. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion
that the settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to alter the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (10 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
revenue entries unilaterally without any order of the competent
authority. This Court also finds that where an entry in the
revenue record is found to be inconsistent with a valid allotment
order or mutation entry and such inconsistency has arisen due to
mistake or irregularity during settlement operations, it is within
the scope of the powers of Competent Court under section 136 of
the LR Act to order correction of the same.
17. Arguing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – Forest
Department, learned counsel has shown a notification dated
12.12.1942. Said notification was neither placed before the
courts below nor was any adjudication undertaken in respect
thereof. It is well settled that new factual grounds cannot be
allowed to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
18. Moreover, the record does not indicate that any entry in the
revenue record was ever made in favour of the Forest
Department prior to the resettlement proceedings, on the basis
of said notification. In absence of any supporting revenue entry
or adjudication by a competent authority, the contention raised
by the Forest Department cannot be accepted.
19. Consequently, this Court finds that impugned order dated
05.07.2017 passed by Board of Revenue is absolutely justified.
Findings recorded therein are based on appreciation of
documentary material available on record and cannot be said to
suffer from perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality as
to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory
jurisdiction.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13556] (11 of 11) [CW-18292/2018]
20. It is equally well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in
nature and is not intended to convert this Court into a court of
appeal over the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals.
Interference is warranted only where the order impugned suffers
from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.
21. This Court finds that order dated 05.07.2017 passed by
Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer does not suffer from any
illegality warranting interference by this Court. Consequently,
order passed by Board of Revenue is upheld.
22. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed. Stay petition and all other pending applications, if
any, also stand dismissed.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
68-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:58:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 09:19:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
