1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5397/2005 Jai Ram Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of Order :- 03.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ajay Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.Zakawat Ali, Dy.G.A. for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.07.2003 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short) whereby his revision petition has been dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that the land, situated in Khasra No.880/1 of village Ganeshwar, is recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahad and Parvat in revenue record. One Mahesh Kumar, respondent No.3 before this Court, encroached over the said land and started construction work over it. In such circumstances, the Tehsildar, Neem-ka- thana issued a notice to respondent No.3 under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Surprisingly, vide order dated 07.10.1997, the Nayab Tehsilader, Neem-ka-thana dropped the proceedings against the respondent No.3. Against 2 the order dated 07.10.1997, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector, Sikar. Vide order dated 03.06.1998, the Additional District Collector, allowed the appeal. Thereafter, against the order dated 03.06.1998, the respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (the 'RAA', for short). Vide order dated 16.10.2000, the RAA reversed the order of Additional District Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer against the order dated 16.10.2000. On 20.01.2001, the learned Board admitted the Revision petition and directed the respondent No.3 to maintain status quo. But vide order dated 03.07.2003, the learned Board rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. Mr. Ajay Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the entire reasoning given by the Board is based on the fact that the Gram Panchayat had issued a “patta” in favour of respondent No.3. However, even before the Board had passed its order on 03.07.2003, on 25.06.2003, the Panchayat Samiti had cancelled the 3 said “patta”. Unfortunately, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the Board. Therefore, the reasoning of the Board that a valid “patta” has been issued is no longer sustainable. In order to substantiate his contention, he has produced a copy of the order dated 25.06.2003 passed by the Panchayat Samiti. Despite the fact that notices were served on respondent No.3, no one has appeared on his behalf. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that one of the reasons given by the Board is the fact that respondent No.3 had a valid “patta” in his favour. However, vide order dated 25.06.2003, the said “patta” was cancelled by the Panchayat Samiti. Although the order dated 25.06.2003 was not brought to the notice of the Board, but it would be better for the Board to reconsider its decision after considering the impact of the order dated 25.06.2003. Therefore, 4 the order dated 03.07.2003 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the Board for reconsideration. The Board should consider the impact and the consequences of the order dated 25.06.2003 passed by the Panchayat Samiti and to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki