[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Forest Department vs Kanna (2026:Rj-Jd:2433-Db) on 15 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (1 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 157/2024
Forest Department Udaipur, Government Of Rajasthan Udaipur
Through Deputy Conservator Of Forest Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lalit S/o Shri Surendra, R/o Village Gordhan Villas
Dewali Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust Udaipur
3. Tehsildar, Girwa Udaipur
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar Board
Of Revenue Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 806/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kushaal S/o Shri Ramaji, R/o Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 824/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Sundar S/o Gawra, B/c Bhil R/o Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dhanji S/o Gawra, B/c Bhil R/o Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
3. Shanker S/o Dewa, B/c Bhil R/o Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
4. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust Udaipur
5. Tehsildar, Girwa Udaipur
6. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur
7. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar Board
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:32:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (2 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
Of Revenue Ajmer
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 831/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Suraj W/o Shri Bherulal, Village Dewali, Gordhan
Villas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Bherulal S/o Shri Nanaji, Village Dewali, Gordhan Villas,
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwam Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 853/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan,udiapur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest. Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Movani W/o Shri Shivlal, R/o Village Dewali
Gordhan Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
2. Smt. Savita W/o Shri Shivlal, R/o Village Dewali
Gordhan Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
3. Aytgiruzed Iffucer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust Udaipur
4. Tehsildar, Girwa Udaipur
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur
6. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 877/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kalulal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, R/o Village Sawina, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:32:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (3 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 880/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Lehri Lal S/o Dalla, B/c Bhillr/o Village Dewali Gordhan
Villas District Udaipur
2. Panna Lal S/o Pema Ram, B/c Bhill R/o Village Dewali
Gordhan Villas District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar Board
Of Revenue Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 883/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Hukmi Bai W/o Bherulal, B/c Bhil, R/o Village
Dewali, Gordhan Villas, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 903/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Suraj W/o Bherulal, R/o Village Dewali, Gordhan
Villas Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
2. Bherulal S/o Nanaji, R/o Village Dewali, Gordhan Villas
Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur
3. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust Udaipur
4. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
5. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
6. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar Board
Of Revenue Ajmer
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 913/2023
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:32:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (4 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kanna S/o Medha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Shikarvadi, Dist Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Dunga S/o Deva, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Kalu S/o Puna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
4. Shobhalala S/o Puna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
5. Sitaram S/o Puna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
6. Bhagwani S/o Puna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
7. Smt. Jamki W/o Puna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Dewali, Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
8. Pannalal S/o Dhanji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Fanda,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Ukar Lal S/o Naru, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Savina,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Chagan S/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
11. Hiralal S/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
12. Tulsiram S/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan
13. Dhapu D/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Laxmi D/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Udi D/o Benaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan
Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
16. Laxmi D/o Benaji, Through Natural Mother Dhanki W/o
Bena, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Goverdhan Vilas, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
17. Raju S/o Dhanki, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Aayad,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
18. Logar S/o Lachha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Gordhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
19. Mitthalal S/o Lachha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
20. Shyamlal S/o Laccha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
21. Devilal S/o Lachha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
22. Smt. Vali D/o Lachha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
23. Teka S/o Pratha, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:32:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (5 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
24. Rupa S/o Chena, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
25. Lehri Lal S/o Dalla, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Savina,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
26. Smt. Dhulki W/o Hukma, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
27. Shambhuy S/o Nanda Ji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village
Dewali, Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
28. Lilki D/o Nanadaji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
29. Hakra S/o Kana, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
30. Khema S/o Kana, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
31. Naresh S/o Kana, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
32. Smt. Pyari W/o Kana, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
33. Budharam S/o Dhanna, By Caste Bhill, R/o Salumber,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
34. Kesiya S/o Dewa Ji, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
35. Khema S/o Kana, By Caste Bhill, R/o Village Dewali,
Goverdhan Vilas, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
36. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
37. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
38. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
39. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 925/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Kalu S/o Shri Shankar Lal, By Caste Jain, R/o Sawina,
Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Registrar Board
Of Revenue Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 937/2023
Forest Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur Through
Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:32:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (6 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
Versus
1. Shankar S/o Shri Shankar Lal, By Caste Jain, R/o
Sawina, Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1204/2024
Forest Department Udaipur, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
Through Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Meena W/o Shri Kalu, R/o Village Sawina, Tehsil
Girwa, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Authorized Officer Cum Secretary, Urban Improvement
Trust, Udaipur.
3. Tehsildar, Girwa, Udaipur.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur.
5. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar, Board
Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Joshi
Mr. Deelip Kawadia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
15/01/2026
1. Vide the instant common judgment/order, the above titled
bunch of appeals is being decided together as not only the facts
are similar, but so are the issues and the law points involved
therein. For ease of reference, facts are being taken from D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No. 157/2024.
2. Appeals are directed against a common judgment/order
dated 13.05.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court
whereby bunch of the writ petitions, assailing a common order
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (7 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur
and another common order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the
Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, filed by the
appellant/State (Forest department) were dismissed.
3. Succinctly stated, the appeal No. 157/2024 arises from a
writ petition filed by the Forest Department challenging:
(i) the allotment order dated 05.11.1974 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Udaipur; whereby land was allotted to private
respondent under Rule 20 of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment
of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970.
(ii) the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Urban Improvement
Trust (UIT), Udaipur under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956; whereby forest land was converted for non-
agricultural use/urban land.
(iii) the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Udaipur; whereby appeal filed by forest
department challenging the conversion order was dismissed.
and
(iv) the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue
for Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby revision against order dated
25.11.2013 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur was
dismissed.
3.1 The appellant relies on the notification dated 27.04.1942, by
which the disputed land comprising Khasra Nos. 804 (0.0050 ha),
805 (0.0350 ha), 806 (0.0600 ha), 807 (0.0650 ha), 808 (0.0900
ha), and 809 (0.2700 ha), aggregating to 0.5250 hectare, was
declared forest land.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (8 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
3.2 Subsequently, on 13.10.1964, a final notification was issued
declaring a total area of 1174.4010 hectares (2900.80 acres) as
forest land. The notified land was demarcated by monolith pillars
in accordance with Sections 4 and 20 of the Rajasthan Forest Act,
1953 and Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Forest (Settlement) Rules,
1958. It is pleaded by appellant that there was no statutory
requirement to provide khasra-wise particulars, as forest land may
lawfully be described by reference to roads, rivers, ridges, or other
well-known and identifiable boundaries.
3.3 On the basis of the final notification dated 13.10.1964, the
appellant asserts that the land in question constituted forest land.
However, mutation entries recorded the land as Gair Khatedari in
1974-75, and khatedari rights were subsequently conferred upon
the respondents in 1992 based on their possession. Relying on
these khatedari rights, the respondents applied in 2007 for
conversion of the land under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956.
3.4 Upon receipt of the conversion application, UIT, Udaipur
invited objections from all concerned. As no objections were
received within the prescribed period, conversion orders were
passed on different dates. After the conversion order dated
25.11.2011 was issued, the appellant raised objections before UIT,
Udaipur, alleging that the conversion was illegal as the land was
forest land. A complaint was also lodged with the Collector,
Udaipur.
3.5 Pursuant to the complaint, a joint inspection was conducted by
the Forest Department and the Revenue Authorities. Thereafter, by
letter dated 09.01.2012, UIT, Udaipur stated that the conversion
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (9 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
orders had been passed as no objections were received at the
relevant time. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the conversion
orders before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, who rejected
the appeal by order dated 25.11.2015.
3.6 The appellant thereafter assailed the order of the Divisional
Commissioner before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer
by filing a revision petition under Section 84 read with Section 9 of
the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Board of Revenue
dismissed the revision petition by order dated 04.12.2014, leading
to the appellant to file the writ petition before this Court.
3.7 The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 13.05.2022,
dismissed the writ petition along with connected matters. The
Court held that the appellant's claim that the entire land
comprised in Khasra Nos. 407 and 408 was forest land was
unfounded, and that the 1942 notification declaring 1174.4010
hectares as forest land was irrelevant to the dispute. It was
further held that the appellant failed to establish that the specific
portions of Khasra Nos. 407 and 408 subjected to proceedings
under Section 90-B were forest land. Noting that certain portions
of these khasras were recorded as revenue land, the learned
Single Judge concluded that the conversion proceedings initiated
by UIT, Udaipur did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
3.8 Aggrieved by the order/judgment dated 13.05.2022
dismissing the writ petition, the appellant has now preferred the
present.
4. We have heard the rival contentions in the aforesaid backdrop
and perused the case file.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (10 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
5. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, learned counsel for the Forest
Department of the State/appellants submits that the judgment
dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to
be quashed as it was rendered without proper consideration of the
record and the appellants' submissions, suffers from non-
application of mind, and ignores material facts.
5.1 It is argued that the learned Single Judge committed a grave
error of law by failing to appreciate the real controversy in its
correct legal perspective and by examining the matter from an
erroneous angle. The findings are contrary to settled principles of
law and, therefore, warrant interference by this Hon'ble Division
Bench.
5.2 Counsel contends that the impugned judgment overlooks the
crucial fact that the land formed part of a reserve forest pursuant
to an initial notification issued in 1942 and a final notification
dated 13.10.1964. It is submitted that the Forest Settlement
Officer had furnished documents for recording the land as "Forest"
in the revenue records in terms of the 1964 notification, which
aspect was completely ignored.
5.3 It is further submitted that land declared as forest could not
have been allotted or converted in violation of the Rajasthan
Forest Act and the Forest Conservation Act. Once the final
notification declaring the land as reserve forest was published in
1964, proceedings under Section 90-B could not be initiated
without prior de-notification. Reliance is placed on the Supreme
Court's decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India1 to contend that forest land cannot be put to non-forest use
2024 SCC OnLine SC 243
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (11 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
without prior approval of the Central Government, rendering the
impugned order unsustainable.
5.4 Counsel also argues that after the Divisional Commissioner
recorded a finding that the appeal and revision were not
maintainable, the authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter
on merits. Proceeding further was without authority of law,
vitiating the entire order.
5.5 It is submitted that the notification dated 13.10.1964 specifies
the forest boundaries and that, as per those boundaries, the
entirety of Khasra Nos. 407 and 408 falls within forest land and
inside the green line. Under Sections 4 and 20 of the Rajasthan
Forest Act, 1953, khasra-wise particulars are not mandatory, as
forest land may be described by natural or identifiable boundaries.
The reference points "Neelia Mool Odhi" and "Barbadiya Mahadev
(Mahadev Ji ki Bagechi)", also reflected in the committee report
dated 22.03.2023, along with the accompanying map, conclusively
establish that the entire Khasra Nos. 407 and 408 form part of
forest land, which remains in the possession of the Forest
Department and is demarcated by forest boundary pillars.
5.6 It is further contended that under Rule 7(c) of the Rajasthan
Forest Settlement Rules, 1958, upon completion of settlement
proceedings and publication of the final notification, the Forest
Settlement Officer is required to forward village maps and land
details to the District Collector for necessary revenue entries.
Although this was done, due to negligence of the revenue
authorities, mutations were not effected and the land continued to
be shown as "Bilanam". Consequently, any conversion under
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (12 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
Section 90-B in favour of the respondents on forest land is ex facie
illegal and liable to be cancelled.
5.7 Lastly, counsel submits that the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that entering the converted land under Section 90-B in the
name of the appellants would exceed the original allotment. The
committee report dated 22.03.2023, prepared by the SDO, Girwa,
the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur, and the Land
Settlement Officer, records that 91.2010 hectares less land has in
fact been entered in the name of the appellants/Forest
Department. The conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge
is thus contrary to the record and facts, rendering the impugned
judgment unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr. Girish Joshi and Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned
counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the appeals,
submitting that the appellants have failed to demonstrate any
perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality in the judgment dated
13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge so as to justify
interference by this Hon'ble Division Bench in intra-court appellate
jurisdiction. It is contended that both the First Appellate Authority
and the Revisional Authority had thoroughly examined the record,
passed reasoned orders, and returned concurrent findings of fact,
which do not warrant interference in writ proceedings.
6.1 Counsels submit that the appeals are merely an attempt to
seek re-appreciation of evidence and to re-agitate factual issues
already conclusively decided against the appellants by the
competent statutory authorities and affirmed by the learned Single
Judge. Such re-examination is impermissible in law, particularly in
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (13 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
the face of concurrent findings by the Divisional Commissioner and
the Board of Revenue.
6.2 It was further argued that the appellants have failed to point
out any specific error of law or jurisdictional infirmity in the
impugned judgment. Mere dissatisfaction with the conclusions
reached by the learned Single Judge does not justify interference
unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence, which is
not the case.
6.3 Counsels emphasize that the learned Single Judge
meticulously examined the entire record, including the forest
notifications, revenue entries, proceedings under Section 90-B of
the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and the findings of the
statutory authorities. The conclusions were reached upon proper
appreciation of the material on record and cannot be characterized
as arbitrary or capricious.
6.4 It is also submitted that the appeals suffer from an inordinate
delay of 491 days, for which no satisfactory explanation or
sufficient cause has been shown. On this ground alone, the
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
6.5 In light of the above submissions, learned counsels for the
respondents seek dismissal of the appeals, asserting that the
impugned judgment dated 13.05.2022 is free from illegality,
perversity, or arbitrariness and calls for no interference by this
Hon'ble Court.
7. Having duly considered the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties, both on the issue of inordinate delay of 491 days in
filing the present appeals and on the merits of the challenge to the
judgment dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge,
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (14 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
we find ourselves wholly unpersuaded to interfere. Having
examined the merits and heard arguments qua the same, de hors
the delay/the question of limitation, no case on merits is made out
for interference with the impugned judgment.
8. The judgment rendered by learned single Judge, under
challenge herein, is founded on cogent and well-reasoned analysis
and rests upon concurrent findings of fact returned by the
Divisional Commissioner and affirmed by the Board of Revenue in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction after due and proper
appreciation of the material on record. No perversity,
arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated so as
to warrant interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
9. The appeals, in substance, amount to a request for
reappreciation of evidence and reopening of factual conclusions
already settled by the competent statutory authorities and the
learned Single Judge, which, at this stage, is impermissible in law.
10. Furthermore, the dispute is essentially an inter-departmental
tussle, with competing claims over the same land by the Revenue
Department on the one hand and the Forest Department on the
other. Such internal administrative discord, by itself, dissuades us
to finds any legal basis to unsettle a reasoned judicial
determination supported by concurrent findings of fact.
11. Moreover, the inter se departmental controversy seems to
have been also adjudicated in view of statement made by the
Competent Authority of the Revenue Department as noted by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in the following
terms:-
"Mr. L.K. Purohit, while supporting the orders passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and the Board of Revenue submits
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2433-DB] (15 of 15) [SAW-157/2024]
that even as per the report of the Tehsildar dated 04.02.2016 (Annexre
R/32) if the land of 85 Bighas in the present case is added while
calculating the forest land, it will exceed the originally recorded land
of 1254 Bighas of Goverdhan Vilas. He further submits that there is no
question of considering the present 85 Bighas of this land as forest
land."
12. As an upshot, taking a wholesome view, we find ourselves in
respectful agreement with the learned Single Judge.
13. The instant set of appeals is accordingly, dismissed.
14. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
10-22-Devanshi/DhananjayS/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:13:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
