S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2512/2007. State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Janak Singh and ors. Date of order : 17/4/2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.S. Chhaba Dy.GA for the State. ****** Heard learned Deputy Government for the State and perused the judgments passed by the learned courts below. It is a case in which respondent No.1 claimed that the land in dispute was allotted to him by the Government in recognition of the service rendered by him to the Indian Army and, therefore, under the rules, patta was issued in his favour. Learned Deputy Government submits that it was proved before the Sub Divisional Officer that in the Settlement of the Samwat 2046, the land was recorded as Sawai Chak land. It was argued that respondent No.1 was recorded as Gair Khatedar in Samwat 2037 whereas he claims to have been allotted the land in 2032. It was argued that respondent No.1 was in possession of the land in dispute. Having heard learned Government Advocate and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that though the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the suit for injunction filed by respondent No.1 but the revenue appellate authority in para 1 of its judgment after a detailed discussion of the evidence has found that when the land had already been allotted to respondent No.1 in the year 1975 corresponding to Samwat 2032 and he has been recorded as Gair Khatedar in the Jamabandi of Samwat 2037 then there was no basis for refering the said land in the settlement of Samwat 2046 as Sawai Chak land by removing the name of respondent No.1. The learned revenue appellate authority also took into consideration the documents Exh.1 receipt of the land revenue, Exh.2 copy of Milan Shetraphal, Exh.3 Jamabandi of Samwat 2037, Exh.4 Jamabandi of Samwat 2046 and Exh.5 allotment letter and arrived at a conclusion that respondent No.1 was in possession of the land in dispute since the date of allotment; therefore, he was entitled to be declared as "Khatedar". The Board of Revenue also examined the matter and upheld the judgment passed by the revenue appellate authority. On perusal of these judgments, I do not find any error which may be described as an error warranting intereference of this court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil